Why ontological arguments are illogical

[genkaus]

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

Because that is what 'beauty' amounts to. Perfection is a measure.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Your turn.

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?

Because every time you take damage its a partial loss and therefore a flaw in the game. Perfection would require the victory to be without flaws.

Can you provide Leibniz's argument here?

How is it any different from the one posted in OP?

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

Why'd he have to convince you? Do you have any reason to believe he is lying?

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.

1. Can you prove either of those statements?
2. How do you classify qualities as positive or negative?
3. Two supposed positive qualities can be contradictory as well.

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?

Yes, you have. "Perfection can/cannot be analyzed" is only one of the axioms. The other is "An entity can have all types of perfections". If we take "Perfection can be analyzed" with the latter, it entails a contradiction. If we take "Perfection cannot be analyzed" with the latter, it prevents us from analyzing and therefore proving a contradiction which we could before. Thus, we get an unprovable contradiction.

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

Where have I gone wrong?