Why ontological arguments are illogical

[Reforged]

Yeah, I can pretty much end this right here.

Prove perfection exists Clive, give me an example of something that is perfect that is demonstrable.
Anything. Then define what makes it perfect.

Well, that's a trivial question.

All rocks are perfect. The thing that makes a rock perfect is that it is a rock. Thus, since rocks exist, and all rocks are perfect, perfect rocks exist. Thus perfection exists.

The question is, what is meant by "perfection"? You'll have to look to the authors of the argument to answer that question.



If the argument fails to define its terms, then there's really no reason to address the argument. Although some arguments don't rely on defining all their terms; instead, they make a structural claim (example: Godel's ontological argument).

This is common in mathematics; the results of group theory apply to anything that satisfies the group axioms.

By that same logic all paedophilia is perfect. The thing that makes paedophilia perfect is that it is paedophilia. Thus, since paedophilia exists, and all paedophilia is perfect, perfect paedophilia exists. Thus perfection exists.

Is that argument for perfection also correct? Please tell me if I've misunderstood your line of reasoning.