Why ontological arguments are illogical

[DeistPaladin]

The argument, for those who dont know it, is effectively:
God is the most perfect thing ever
A thing is more perfect if it is real
Therefore God is real

These "blah blah blah, therefore Jesus" arguments are the closest that religious apologists ever come to providing any evidence for their supernatural claims. That's probably the most pathetic thing about them.

Where are the supernatural powers that Jesus promised believers would have? Can they move mountains into the sea by the power of their faith (Mark 11:23)? Can they cast out demons and speak in tongues (Mark 16:17)?

Perhaps they could produce some artifacts? How about Paul's magic handkercheifs and aprons that could heal the sick (Acts 19:11-12)? These could be turned over to the medical profession for independent peer review, using repeatable double-blind tests that filter out the placebo effect.

Or maybe we could get the big guy in the sky to appear before the UN and give a speech just like he once did to the entire nation of Israel (Judges 1:1-2)? Or maybe have him set an offering on fire (Elijah and the priests of Baal)? A booming voice from the sky would get our attention (Mark 1:11).

If the Christians want me to seriously believe that the Bible is an accurate representation of how the universe works, then show me. One can barely turn a page in the Bible without reading about some extraordinary supernatural events, from angels speaking to people to faith healing. Yet, when we put down the Bible, all we see and experience is a natural universe, the kind of universe we would expect to find if the Bible's claims were NOT true.

Sorry, but "blah blah blah" doesn't cut it. Even if your logic were solid (it isn't) or if the conclusion seemed to follow (it doesn't), it would still fall short of the burden of proof established by the extraordinary nature of your claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is the standard by which we evaluate every other claim in our life.

Examples:

Let's say I told you I had lunch today with...
1. My wife
2. The governor of my state.
3. The President of the United States.
4. My dead father, who passed away 10 years ago.

Your reaction would probably be...

1. Accepted with testimony alone (mundane claim)
2. Met with suspicion as a tall tale, independent evidence required.
3. Outlandish tale! News reports by reputable agencies required.
4. Batshit insane story! Overwhelming evidence required and even then it should be taken with suspicion of a hoax.

The more extraordinary the claim, the greater the evidence required.

Christian claims are pretty much at level 4 above. Therefore, "Blah blah blah" fails from the get-go.

Besides, the argument is a bare assertion regarding a subjective claim followed by a non sequitur of "therefore it MUST be real" (as if reality was obligated to conform to what we think would be cool) and contains an implicit but invalid assumption "and of course this 'God' is the Christian god, who else?" The only part of this "argument" that makes me wonder anything is how anyone could possibly take it seriously.