Why ontological arguments are illogical

[CliveStaples]

Why not? Suffering is irrelevant to beauty. Just ask Helen of Troy.

You're defining "perfect beauty" in terms of "amount of attractiveness". How do you know that that's what 'perfect' beauty amounts to?

Yes, it kind of does.

No, it doesn't.

It'd include winning with no damage and the number of moves issue would be resolved by whether the standard of perfection is intricacy or efficiency.

How do you know it would be "winning with no damage"? Why wouldn't a 'perfect' victory mean maximizing the amount of damage taken while still securing a victory?

I did and they didn't. So I had to assume that Leibniz is using "perfect" in the same sense as the dictionary.

Can you provide Leibniz's argument here?

Ofcourse not. Though you'd still need a good argument against an atheist who stands up saying that he does.

Nah, they'd have to convince me, not the other way around.

Pick two contradictory qualities and conceptualize the perfect form of both.

The perfect form of a negative quality is to possess none of it; the perfect form of a positive quality is to possess it to an optimal degree.

The contradiction isn't necessarily unprovable in perpetuity, just within that context. Changing the axiom (that perfection can be analyzed) entails a provable contradiction, which would mean that it still entails a contradiction - just not provable.

What provable contradiction does it entail? What is the proof?

I don't understand your last claim. "Perfection can be analyzed" entails a provable contradiction, which means that "it still entails a contradiction, just not provable". So if "Perfection can be analyzed" entails a provable contradiction, then "Perfection can be analyzed" still entails a contradiction, but not a provable one? Or have I mistaken your claim?

So give me the "actual" argument then. This is the best I've found.

You're the one criticizing Leibniz's argument. It's your responsibility to get his argument right.