The ontological argument that just won't die

a few days ago i saw a friend of mine's humorous facebook status which read:

"god is love. love is blind. therefore ray charles is god."

i laughed a little, then added the last part as a comment: "and now god is dead"

everyone had a good chuckle at the blatant idiocy of this semantic equation; but shortly after, i couldn't help but be haunted by the equally cretin pressing of anselm of canterbury's thousand year old ontological argument for the existence of god and the shortcomings of rené descartes, who while providing the mathematical foundation for newton's later discoveries, was also the victim of his own fuzzy philosophy, because he actually believed in this ontological bullshit which says:

1. god is the most perfect (the greatest) being conceivable
2. it is more perfect (greater) to exist than not to exist
3. therefore, god must exist

yeah, well, the concept of god does not mean god exists, okay? my concept of the most perfect being is a naked megan fox-type who is always by my side when i want her to be, and always gone when i want her to be, who cooks for me and produces big wads of $100 bills whenever i want them. that's my fucking concept of the most perfect being but that doesn't mean she fucking exists.

the funny thing is, my perfect being concept is more likely to exist than the invisible bearded sky god concept being who hears millions of people's requests at the same time and causes natural disasters in new orleans to punish the wicked and told Lot it's okay to fuck his own daughters.

so, uh... yeah, you can take your ontological argument back to the 11th century where it rightfully belongs, along with your geocentric universe and women-as-less-than-human theory.