Why ontological arguments are illogical

[genkaus]

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.

Wrong. Rocks are defined as naturally occurring solid aggregates of minerals within a size range. No naturally occurring rock would be completely solid with all its structural constituents within that size range and any intervention to make it so would make it artificial. No rocks are perfect.

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

No, for terms common in language, you can reliably look to a dictionary.

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.

Another thing that's common - using terms that even an idiot can look up in a dictionary so you don't have to give an English class just to make an argument.