Why ontological arguments are illogical

[CliveStaples]

Except that nobody claimed it couldn't. Reread the post you responded to.

It was something like, "Logic guarantees truth <=> the premises are true."

Consider the following argument:

1. Barack Obama was elected President in 2004. (premise)
2. John McCain was elected President in 2004. (premise)
3. If p is true, and p->q is true, then q is true. (conclusion)

Surely (1) and (2) are false. Thus, the premises of this argument are false. And yet, logic guarantees that the conclusion of the argument, (3), is true.

But can that be guaranteed? Can it be said to be true? If you made a comment with regards to these two statements you would have been responding to the comments you quoted. Hmn, whats the word for arguing against an opponent by way of arguing against a statement or claim which your opponent did not make..oh, the name escapes me....just can't put my finger on it....... Pro-tip, when you decide to correct a person on their use or assessment of logic, try not to fuck up the process -in the process.

Would you care to take another crack at why the statements you responded to aren't true?
(i just like to watch you argue against reason -with "reason"-..lol)

See above.

---

No. Why would it?

It depends on your definition of 'perfection', doesn't it? For example, if the "perfect" amount of beauty is defined as "that amount which minimizes suffering universally", then in your example the woman would not possess 'perfect' beauty.

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.

The dictionary defines "perfect beauty"?

I think we'd be better served by criticizing an actual ontological argument instead of just making wild characterizations about what features ontological arguments do and don't have.

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

Well, we've each made our claims, and neither of us has provided evidence. Of course, this whole issue can be avoided by criticizing specific ontological arguments.

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.

No, he did argue exactly how all perfections can exist together in a single entity. You might not like his argument, or you might not find it persuasive, but he did argue it.

His argument is: "It is impossible to demonstrate that no entity can possess all perfections. Therefore, the conjunction of every perfection does not entail contradiction."

It seems like the continuum hypothesis to me; you can't prove whether it's "true" or "false" from the axioms of ZFC, so therefore it is logically compatible (if it weren't logically compatible, ZFC + Continuum hypothesis would entail a contradiction).

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

The justification was that since perfections cannot be analyzed, in particular they cannot be proved to contradict each other, and hence entail no contradiction with each other.