Ontological Argument

The Ontological argument is 'a priori' (a truth that is established independently of observation) attempt to prove God's existence by showing that, from the very concept of God, his existence can be deduced. To sum up the points of the Ontological argument, I will use Descartes 5 point defense.

1) God, by definition, is absolutely perfect
2) It is more perfect to exist than to not exist (if you disagree with this, you might as well end your life, considering you believe nonexistence is more perfect)
3) Therefore, to conceive God (perfect being), it is necessary to conceive Him as existing (because to conceive of God as not existing is self-canceling)
4) Therefore, to say, "God does not exist" is to contradict oneself.
5) Therefore, the sentence "God exists" is true.

David Hume critiqued this defense with:

"It is always illegitimate to move from a pure definition to a statement of fact about reality. Definitions are only about the relation between meanings and as such are purely representations of logic and of linguistic conventions. Statements of fact about reality are always based on observation."

I disagree with Hume to an extent. First of all, I'm not saying that Descartes has necessarily won the argument, but merely that I see a flaw in Hume's critique. Hume says that definitions are merely representations of linguistics. Although this is true, it is also true that these "representations of linguistics" are based upon observation. The word horse is based after the observation of one. The horse was given the title "horse" and now that word (or representation of the animal) is created. So to conclude that God exists by the definition of "perfect" is not entirely in error. If I was to say that a the soda can in front of me was perfect (assuming there honestly were no scratches or anything that would take away its "perfection), then the word "perfect" is a correct representation of the idea. Therefore, the term "perfect" is based upon observation.

Once again, I don't think Descartes has nailed everything down, but I thought Hume has a fallacy. Anyways, I will post later on the Teleological argument.