Why ontological arguments are illogical

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it doesn't Clive (depend on the attributes the deity is said to possess). That would be assigning a personal judgement of perfection to someone else's gods (and what could possibly go wrong there eh?). Wotan is perfect as Wotan, Wakan tanka as Wakan tanka, Tom Navy, and Jeff the God of Biscuits as well. I'm afraid that this argument, to me, appears to rule out christianity as a proposition, since it fills the air above us so effectively with gods. Would a christian, for example, argue that these gods aren't perfect (or any other attribute which he wishes to assign to a god)? Of course he would, but he wouldn't be able to explain why this is so, or why it was relevant (and any explanation he offered is just as easily turned against his own by a believer in any other god through reference of their own gods and god claims as though they were standards). Each of these gods "possess all perfections" it just depends on who you ask. As a fun mind bender, the "imperfections" (you see, what we leverage this term for is largely a matter of cultural bias) of some gods are seen as precisely the source of their power, why they are "perfect" for the job of a god in the first place.

You know, that's something that always struck me as odd about the arguments we see offered up for a god. Even if one just conceded the entire argument up to the moment of conclusion, they still manage to fuck it up massively. You know that dream where you're pumping your legs as fast as possible, chest heaving, trying to outrun this or that -but never seem to get anywhere? Bit like that.