The classic ontological argument

[Deesse23]

The flaw in this argument is actually pretty simple: "Existence" is not just another property/attribute of a thing that makes it "greater" than another thing without "existence". Thats outright silly.

But, all things being equal, isn't something that exist in reality greater than something that does not?

No, existence is a precondition to having any attributes. Comparing existing things with nonexisting ones is a category error. Who was the better detective: Sherlock Holmes or Eliot Ness? Well, Sherlock Holmes never was a detective, since he never existed. He is an imaginary figure, just like an imaginary god with whatever imaginary attributes you want to attribute it with. But one thing is sure: You dont get to attribute "existence" to anything with the kind of dishonest mental masturbation the ontological argument shows to be.

All this ontological arguments tries is to put real things into the same box with imaginary things, and then pretend to be able to pull one of these things randomly out. By the same logic, i could pull out an existing pink unicorn (which is "greater" than an imaginary one, right?). If there was actual evidence for a god actually existing, none of this BS would be required to do.