Why ontological arguments are illogical

[Tempus]

---

I think the biggest problem with the argument is the term 'perfect'. Perfection, as with beauty, is a value judgement. A hidden assumption in the argument is that this (non-subjective) notion of perfection exists.

---

Which arguments use this assumption, specifically? Most of the philosophical ontological arguments I've seen have very precisely defined what they mean by "perfection".

I thought Anselm's did, but perhaps not. I was mainly going by the OP.

---

God, when you're imagining it, is a concept - an abstraction. Imagined things do not suddenly become existent by attaching imagined properties to them. The argument, to me, necessarily implies that we can't imagine something that doesn't exist.

---

Well, to be specific, the Ontological argument doesn't hold that your idea of God is somehow given essence. Usually it argues that when you're thinking of God, you must be thinking of something that actually exists; as opposed to when you thinking of Superman, or unicorns, where you're not thinking of something that actually exists.

Oh, I understand that it's not saying the idea in your mind is brought into being. In hindsight I should've written something more like: "The belief in imagined things is not suddenly justified by attaching imagined properties to them."