The Ontological argument for Gods existence

Pro says "In fact, let us assume that God only is a notion. We conceive of God as perfect. Therefore our conception exists - not just as a notion (because otherwise it wouldn't be perfect) but in reality. " Congrats you have proved that the conception of God exists, just like the conception of the invisible pink unicorn exists. .. .. .. your conception of God being perfect doesn't actually PROVE that God is perfect or even if perfection actually exists outside of your own mind/ideas/NOTIONS Pro makes this argument here. .. .. . 1) Let us assume that God only is a notion 2) We conceive of God as perfect. 3) Therefore our conception exists 4) Therefore our conception exists - not just as a notion (because otherwise it wouldn't be perfect) but in reality. Step 4 is a non sequitur. The conception of God being perfect doesn't prove that your other conception of God only existing as a concept is false. Its possible that you have a conception of God and or perfection existing, while at the same time that God does not actually exist. There is another option, its not that the concept of God only existing as a notion is wrong, it that the idea of perfection and or God actually existing is wrong. Its only a contradiction because you have assumed that your conception of God being perfect and thus exists is true, thus the concept of God only existing as a concept and not actuality is false. 1) Let us assume that blah blah blah only is a notion 2) We conceive of blah blah blah as perfect. 3) Therefore our conception exists 4) Therefore our conception exists - not just as a notion (because otherwise it wouldn't be perfect) but in reality. Pro then goes on to say "We cannot say God does not exist if we say God is perfect, because that would be a logical contradiction. So my argument actually proves God, not just as a notion or conception, but as reality. Some one making contradictory claims doesn't prove that perfection or God exists. Maybe that person shouldn't be going around saying that God is perfect in the first place, that will clear up that contradiction right there. Pro says "Second, I did not say that the notion of God proves God exists. I said that because God is perfect God must exist. " Like I said, you have assumed that perfection actually exists, then equated God with that perfect existence, thus you have already assumed God/perfection exists in order to prove that God exists. Pro says "I did not presuppose the first line of reasoning because you conceded it before the argument even began. You said in round one that God had various qualities which could only be true of a perfect being. " Pro equates a definition of God as a proof of that Gods existence. Did I mention that X by definition is perfect ? And of course if X is defined as perfect then this PROVES X exists ! !! Pro presents a new argument where they say. .. .. .. . "God has quality Perfect Everything Perfect must Exist Therefore God must Exist" God has quality perfect ? cool prove it without assuming perfection and or God exists. And no just repeating the definition of that thing is not a proof of that things existence. How do we know that God exists ? 1) God by definition exists (cause God is perfect, and you have to exist to be perfect) 2) Does God exist ? 3) See premise 1 4) Therefore God exists How do we know God is perfect ? 1) God by definition is perfect 2) Something that is perfect has to exist 3) How do we know that God is perfect ? 4) See Premise 1 5) Therefore God exists How do we know that perfection exists ? 1) Perfection by definition is a type of existence 2) Therefore perfection exists Pros ontological argument has been shown to be fallacious, as such it should be rejected.