Exams, God, and some Mars Bars

Today I finished my Exams, and I think it prudent to post what I learned this year, on the topic of existence of God.

Anselm put forth the Ontological Argument, which says:

1. Things are wrong or right by definition.For example, a four sided triangle. The definition of a triangle is 'a three sided shape', so a four sided triangle is wrong by definition.
2. The definition of 'God' is 'perfect, that of which no greater can be conceived. 
3. Perfection includes existence.
4. Therefore, to say "The perfect God does not exist" is wrong by definition.
5. Therefore, the perfect God must exist.

Then, the philosophers start to get bitchy.

Gaunilo: Ontological Argument can be used to 'prove' that anything exists, for example, a perfect island. Perfection includes existence, so to say my perfect island does not exist is wrong by definition... right?

Anselm: The definition of 'God' is 'perfect', douche. The definition of 'island' is a fricken landmass. Nothing is more awesome than god, tonnes of things are better than a landmass.

Kant: Existence isn't an entity, moron! Imagine I were to tell you about this awesome time I had last night with two great looking... Mars Bars. If I told you about every single detail, about how great these Mars Bars were, would I add "Oh, by the way, they exist."? Course I wouldn't ... meathead.

Anselm: It is so an entity. If I were to tell you "I've left these fantastic Mars Bars for you tonight, they're waiting for you at your apartment". Even if I told you in every detail how fantastic they are, but then added "They're imaginary!" wouldn't you feel a teensy bit disappointed? 'Course you would, dumbass.

Mysterious Person: One must trust an a posteriori argument over an a priori argument.

Anselm, Kant and Gaunilo: ...

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how I passed my exam. Also, I ran out of insults.