Burden of Proof

[Surtr]

William Lane Craig the great Christian philosopher

pointed out that something that doesn't exist can't really do anything so you arrive at a premise that makes no logical sense. So he's got you there, he's got you by the balls.

It's intended to be a humorous parody of a logically invalid theist argument, not an serious argument that actually proves the nonexistence of a deity.

it takes no account of the possability that it was an accident by the creator rather than any intent

(The creation of an incredibly complicated universe with laws of physics tweaked in a way that life can exist can be an accident?)
This once again means nothing. This is a parody of a logically invalid argument that claims to prove the existence of god; it seeks to use similar invalid logic to prove his nonexistence. In doing this, it shows that the ontological argument is actually quite silly.