system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
SEP statement on Ontological Arguments

The SEP article on Ontological Arguments says the following about criticisms of ontological arguments: "An obvious problem is that claims involving that vocabulary cannot then be non-question-beggingly detached from the scope of that definition. (The inference from ‘By definition, God is an existent being’ to ‘God exists’ is patently invalid; while the inference to ‘By definition, God exists’ is valid, but uninteresting."

I am having a hard time understanding the difference between ‘By definition, God is an existent being. Therefore, God exists’ and ‘By definition, God exists’, and why the former is "patently invalid" and not merely uninteresting like the latter.
gpt
So you have two arguments :

1)

>P1. By definition, God is an existent being

>P2. ...

>Conclusion : God exists

This is question begging because the conclusion is already assumed in the first premise.

and 2)

>P1. By definition, God is an existent being

>P2. ...

>Conclusion : By definition, God exists

This in uninteresting because we want to know if god exists, not merely that we defined the concept as an existing being.