Why ontological arguments are illogical

[genkaus]

Doesn't that suggest that she doesn't have perfect beauty, but that she has 'too much' beauty?

No. Why would it?

In order to make your argument, you need to understand what is meant by "perfection". What do you mean when you say "perfect woman"? Which ontological argument uses the definition of "perfection" that you're employing here?

I've found that the ontological arguments don't actually define "perfect", so I have to assume that it means the same thing as it does in the dictionary.

No. Different philosophers use different language and terminology--Leibniz has his particular metaphysic and epistemology, and Plantinga his.

To my knowledge, the philosophers that have offered ontological arguments have been careful to note what they mean by "perfection".

To my knowledge - no, they haven't. Feel free to correct me.

???

Leibniz thought that the logic of Descartes' argument was flawed, because Descartes failed to consider whether a supremely perfect being was coherent. The section you quoted even states that Leibniz thought all perfections can exist together in a single entity, and that ultimately Descartes' argument was valid.

And failed to argue exactly how all perfections can exist together in a single entity, opting, instead, to simply state it. That doesn't make it valid.

An argument supporting the notion that Leibniz thought perfections were compatible? Didn't you just quote one?

No. What I quoted was simply the notion itself. I'm yet to see a justification.