The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Esquilax]

These repeated demonstrations would be wrong.

The criteria for accepting a premise is not that it can be demonstrated. Lots of premises are taken to be true that are either not demonstrated, or impossible to demonstrate. Rather, the criteria for accepting a premise is whether it, or its negation has some evidence or justification to support its truth or falsehood.

The classic example of a premise that we take to be true without demonstration are regularities in nature.

Eg, take the claim "The sun will rise tomorrow." This cannot be demonstrated. If you believe it, it's because you rely on inductive inference as the justification for your belief.

Bottom line: Demonstration is not the criteria for assenting to a premise. Thus you don't have a successful refutation here.

Except that the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow has some demonstration: it has evidence backing it up, observations of past mornings where that has happened, and a mechanical understanding of how the sun "rises" from our perspective, what causes that to happen, and thus a good reason to believe that it will continue to do so. It's a probabilistic inference, but crucially, it is that way because it's derived from actual objective evidence and not logic alone.

Meanwhile, you have no such evidence at all for the ontological argument. There is nothing there to base an inference on, just logical premises that may or may not be sound, we have no way of knowing. That's the problem.