Here are the 2 summarised premises
By definition God is a perfect Being.
For something to be perfect, it must exist.
Therefore, God exist.
What is wrong with this proof?
By definition God is a perfect Being.
Its use of the word “perfect,” that’s what. Its extra baggage and the concept should be simpler than that.
What does “perfect” mean? I use the word to describe a degree of quality in something. It might become extra baggage when I call a triangle with three right angles a “perfect” triangle…as if anything less would still be a real triangle. It is either a triangle or it is not, there is no “better” or “worse” triangle.
The same reasoning might apply in the conception of “God.” The existence of such probably wouldn’t depend on an evaluation such as a degree of quality or magnitude like “perfection.”
What I think humans conceive of when they attribute that characteristic(perfection) to a God is essentially things that humans lack, so “God” would be like a project which involved the “perfections” of those human characteristics which are lacking. There are deeply seated psychological connotations in that concept: Perfect=God.
While De’Trop’s explanation is valid to some extent, the major complaint with that argument is that just because I can CONCIEVE of perfection doesn’t mean perfection exists.
See, humans may be able to define perfection, but just because we can define something doesn’t mean it must happen.
For instance, I concieve of a perfect circle. However, does that mean that it exists? No. I concieve of a perfect being (that of which none greater can be concieved). Does it exist? No. Perhaps by definition it exists, but we can define lots of things, including things that we don’t know exist (see: Black Holes until early 90’s discovery… defined, speculated on, but we weren’t SURE… mathematically, they HAD to exist… but we werent sure).
So the real problem is the idea of allowing something that is purely conceptual cross into existence just by defining it as such. Boy, if I could do that, I would be as powerful as god, wouldn’t I? LOL 
Your logic is flawed, just because you can conceive in something doesn’t mean that it is true. Look at what you said, now think about what it says.
By [the human-made, non-perfect] definition God is a perfect Being.
For something to be perfect, it must exist
Now, if you think of this, how can something that is un-definable be defined by something inferiour to it? It can’t. I could also state that:
Humans made up God and the definition of God.
For something to be made up, it can’t exist.
Therefore God doesn’t exist…
How do you like those apples?
~After Death~
You’re equivocating on ‘perfect’ here. A perfect circle would be (I assume), one for whom every point along it’s circumference is equidistant from the center. It’s certainly possible for such a thing to exist, but it may or may not.
On the other hand, a perfect being- God, say, would posses qualities such as omnipotence. It is argued that omnipotence and the greatness of God would include being a
being. If it’s possible for a nessicary Being to exist, then it exists nessicarily.
And you don’t address me… 
lol…
~After Death~
Sorry post mortem. Your formulation of an ontological argument against the existence of God is alright as far as a parody goes, but I think premise 2 is fatally flawed:
“For something to be made up, it can’t exist.”
At the very least, you need a lot more work to demonstrate that the existence of everything ‘made up’ is impossible (which is what you imply by ‘can’t exist’. On the surface, it seems to me quite the opposite- I can think of plenty of things that people ‘made up’ (conceieved of from their imaginations) which either turned out to be real, or were made real through human ingenuity, or at the very least it is possible that they be real.
No, I was using the term made up,´ as in Elves, magic, or God...Things that are conceived of and have been made or proven true were thought up...But, I see your point, some people might see it the other way. But, in the American culture, made-up´ things aren’t true, nor will they ever be…
~After Death~
Part of your first premiss is flawed. If God really exists and is the creator, humans cannot make up God.
Maybe we should consider how did the notion of God ever entered human psyche, and it existed, apparently independently, for every cultures every since man existed. There are other things that are seemingly common amongst all men too, ideas like justice, beauty, immortality, etc.
I can think of two reasons (there may be more).
First there is indeed something real behind such an idea, or else mankind could not have conceived of it.
Secondly we are wired biologically and physiologically to think or imagine in such a way, to conceive of such abstract notions, ie God is merely the psychological manifestation of our brain, just as consciousness is. Now we can investigate whether this is true or not by looking at animals, those who are our kin biologically speaking. Do animals have notions of God too?
But in any case I do not believe that God can be proven. Or else knowledge of God is premised on a capacity namely an intelligence to be able to understand such things as the onotological proof or whatever. God is not unfair nor biased. The means to know God must be equally hard or easy for anyone and everyone.
1] Ideas can exist too, as ideas pure and simple.
2] In fact, ideas exist before objects.
3] Objects have a transitory material existence.
4] Ideas have eternal moral and intellectual existence.
5] But ideas can only be seen by the intellect.
6] Whereas objects are visible rather to sense.
7] Both 5] and 6] impress themselves upon mental faculties as existent
stuff.
Well, if you want to define 'made-up' as 'those products of human imagination which can never exist in reality', then I guess your next step would be to show that God falls into that category! Why must God be 'made-up' is the way that leprechauns and zombies are made up, instead of in the way that lighter-than-air vehicles and other planets were once 'made up'? In other words, even if I granted you that 90-100% of what is claimed about God is a product of someone's imagination, why can't I go on to say [i]and yet, it's possible that He exists anyway?[/i] That's the core of the ontological argument, after all.
You are talking about God existing “Neccessarily”.
The inference is that God possess all perfections, & existence is a perfection, therefore he must exist.
Well, it’s debateable whether existence is a perfection.
Also it’s tricky to nail down a definition of “Perfect”
Also;
You can concieve of a “perfect” island.
However it doesn’t neccessarilly follow that the island exists.
Yes, I see that, and that is also a flaw in the original argument. If he is to be defined as perfect, as I made him made-up,´ and if he is to be accepted because a quality of perfectness is existence, made-upèdness´ and non-existence, then why is his `proof´ any more valid than mine?
~After Death~
And if God isn’t the creator, and we define him as such, he doesn’t exist and he is still defined as perfect. And then, existence isn’t a necesity of perfectness, now is it?
~After Death~
Certainly and obviously! But the question is why? what motivates such ideas in the first place? I didnt say that the motivation is external or material. It may well be something spiritual, non-material, and another IDEA itself.
Well, first off, you're argument doesn't conflict with his, so there's no point in comparing them. You defined God as something 'made' up, he defined God as something 'perfect'. So then, when you say 'God' you mean 'A', and when he says 'God', he means 'B'. So your argument shows A doesn't exist well enough, but what does that have to do with B, other than you both chose the same word to label your unrelated concepts?
So yes, your argument is just as valid, but it doesn't conflict with or provide a defeater for his in any way. See this:
- Chairs are mythical beings from the land of Oz.
- mythical beings from the land of Oz don’t exist.
- There are no chairs.
Does that argument prove that you aren’t sitting in a chair? Of course not.
Oh, one footnote. It could be argued that when you say ‘A’, and he says "B’, you are describing two qualities of the same concept, in which case your arguments could be compared. But the one quality rene defined was ‘exist’, and the one you defined was ‘not exist’, so your concepts exclude each other and thus cannot be related.
*1-Yes, in fact, I know that it does deal with his in every way, shape, and form.
*2-When I say God, I mean made-up´ or non-existence; when he says God, he means perfect´ and existence; but these both deal with the exact same thing, the conception of God, his `quality,´ defined by us, an aspect of this quality, and our conclusion.
*3-Unrelated? Do they not both deal with God and his existence, using ontological proof?
*4-No, it doesn’t, but if mine is true (according to ontological proof, and so is his, then our statements both must be the same, thus marking them both VOID, and not proof).
*5-And him saying:
Does not prove his existence either.
~After Death~
No, they don't deal with the same thing at all. Your concept of God doesn't include perfection (where perfection entails existence), and rene's didn't include made-upness, where that entails non-existence. Further, the qualities used (existence and non-existence) exclude each other, so it's impossible for you to be discussing the same thing. You are both just using the word 'God' for your disparate ideas.
If you used an aspect of God that rene agreed with (say, omnibenevolence) and used that to show that God must be made-up, that would be different. But as of yet, no common ground has been established.
Yes, they both fail to prove anything useful. All his argument shows is that something exists, and all yours shows is that something else doesn't exist. However, rene's argument can be powerful with a subtle tweak, and I don't see how yours can go anywhere.