The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Esquilax]

The KCA, the Ontological Argument, TAG, are all desperate attempts to argue god into existence. They might persuade those that already want to believe or those not very well versed in logic or unable to comprehend what's being said. Not those with more training and ability to think.

That's sort of the thing I've been alluding to from the beginning that, curiously, continues to be ignored by the proponents of the argument: you can't talk a thing into existence. Logical arguments made in the absence of objective observations might work within the self-contained world of the argument, but there's nothing to bridge that hypothetical into the world we actually live in. A valid argument- which the ontological argument is not, but hey- can still be an untrue argument if the premises don't align with the world itself.