That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

Assuming that Perfection exists in actuality Pro says "1) A perfect being does not exist 2) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist C) Therefore premise one is false" Premise 2 assumes that perfection already exists, and then proclaims well its impossible to be perfect and not exist. Yeah its also impossible to be red and not exist cause non existence things don't have red or perfection or anything for that matter whether in an attribute or essence. Without already assuming perfection exists, premise 2 is just stating that if something exists then its non existence is impossible. Pro says "The beauty of it all is, then, that because perfection exists a perfect being exists," Where was the proof that perfection actually exists ? other than your own assumptions that it already exists. Pro says "Blue would not exist if nothing were blue in the world - it is because there are blue things that blue exists. Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection" Flying invisible unicorns would not exist unless there were flying invisible unicorns in the world. .. .. errr what ? Going back to Pros first premise "It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" "It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" = Perfection must exist 1) It is impossible for perfection not to exist = Perfection must exist 2) Therefore Perfection must exist Which is the same as saying. .. .. .. .. 1) Perfection must exist 2) Therefore Perfection exists Circular reasoning. Defining perfection and X into existence. I'd like to go back to the original argument premise 1 which states "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" What Pro is arguing that perfections non existence is impossible, but why is this the case ? Its only the case cause perfection has been defined as necessarily existent. ANYTHING that is defined necessarily existent by DEFINITION must exist. I would like to draw strong emphasis to this statement by Pro "Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection" Lets be quite clear here, Pro has given something (in this case perfection) NECESSARY EXISTENCE, or to put in more crudely it MUST EXIST. Trouble is you don't get to prove that something actually exists just be DEFINING it into existence, and you don't get to prove that something exists by describing it as something that MUST EXIST and thus its non existence is impossible. X must exist otherwise it would not be X 1) It is impossible for X not too exist 2) Therefore X exists Now consider this argument. .. .. .. .. . "Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection" 1) It is impossible for perfection not to exist 2) Therefore perfection exists Concepts vs Actuality Just because you can have the concept of something doesn't prove that thing actually exists. Now what about if I have the concept of perfection ? sure no problem there. We are free to think what ever you like. What if within that concept of perfection I have the concept of perfection as necessarily existent, that is too say it must exist ? Sure no problem there. We are free to think what ever you like. What if within that concept of perfection I have the concept of perfection as necessarily existent and I claim it proves that Perfection actually exists ? Now we have a problem. Your concept of perfection existing due to necessarily existing doesn't prove it actually exists any more than my concept of X existing due to necessarily existing proves that it actually exists. I look forward to Pros reply.