Anslem's argument is sound.

[Amarok]

 Anslem's [sic] argument is sound

Not quite.  Anselm's argument is a  sound, and very little more than that.


Boru

And that sound is 

[Angrboda]

These two premises prove Anselm's argument is correct though secular Academia presents it with the worse bias:
1. It is greater to exist than not to exist (We try to prevent death because we all believe in this).
2. An action that is imagined and intended, is not as good and great as the same action put to practice. That is to say if we wanted to do a good but we didn't, it is not as good as actually doing the act.
To know Anselm's argument, all you need to believe is one premise which is the controversial premise, that is: "Existence is a perfection/greatness/beauty/goodness."
This has been proven, and the rest will be proven easily. He was no dumb person. When we think of ultimate greatness, we cannot define it if it were not a living reality. This is because life is an aspect of ultimate greatness. It is true, and has been proven in the first 2 premises I have shown.
In fact, while true, you don't even have to argue that living is an aspect of every greatness. Just that living is required for a degree of greatness or is part of some of its instance definition.
You can equate imaging being a hero with actually being a hero, but we know the latter is much greater.
So the ultimate one cannot be defined where it not that he exists. And indeed he has been defined for ages.

Ignoring for the moment that this is a terribly pathetic retelling of a classic argument, omitting essential premises and key themes of the argument, you are wrong even on your own terms.  The first premise is not objectively true.  As theists are continually telling us, in a world without their particular God, it matters not whether you live or die.  So your argument fails because you've provided a subjective truth, that I value being alive, as an objective one.  So, no, the argument is not sound, and your incompetent defense of it only shows that you don't know the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact.

Since Anselm's argument (the classic version) is a subject of similar debate in another thread, let us present the actual argument itself and see where this leads.

a. The Argument Described

St. Anselm, Archbishop of Cantebury (1033-1109), is the originator of the ontological argument, which he describes in the Proslogium as follows:

"[Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality."

The argument in this difficult passage can accurately be summarized in standard form:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
   
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
   
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
   
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
   
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
   
6. Therefore, God exists.
   

Intuitively, one can think of the argument as being powered by two ideas. The first, expressed by Premise 2, is that we have a coherent idea of a being that instantiates all of the perfections. Otherwise put, Premise 2 asserts that we have a coherent idea of a being that instantiates every property that makes a being greater, other things being equal, than it would have been without that property (such properties are also known as "great-making" properties). Premise 3 asserts that existence is a perfection or great-making property.

Accordingly, the very concept of a being that instantiates all the perfections implies that it exists. Suppose B is a being that instantiates all the perfections and suppose B doesn't exist (in reality). Since Premise 3 asserts that existence is a perfection, it follows that B lacks a perfection. But this contradicts the assumption that B is a being that instantiates all the perfections. Thus, according to this reasoning, it follows that B exists.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

...I've shown in the past that the notion of a greatest conceivable being is incoherent, though you didn't understand the last time so I'm not optimistic that explaining it again will help.  When you say that God is the greatest conceivable being, you're saying that God has all the good qualities.  But goodness is a subjective judgement, so greatest possible being is a judgement made up of subjective judgements.  For every subjective judgement that says X is a great making quality, there is an equally valid subjective judgement which says that X is a bad making quality.  The reason is because qualities and properties are neither good or bad in and of themselves, they only become so when a subject attaches a value to them.  You cannot construct a greatest anything out of properties that are inherently neutral. So "greatest conceivable being" has no meaning other than as a religious catchphrase.

[Cyberman]

I exist.
Daffy Duck does not exist.

Well, Daffy Duck does exist in precisely the same way Yahweh exists.

Daffy Duck does exist. Just not as a duck.

[chimp3]

MK: Use Anselm's argument and prove a god that does not want us masturbating. I will wait patiently.

[SteveII]

...I've shown in the past that the notion of a greatest conceivable being is incoherent, though you didn't understand the last time so I'm not optimistic that explaining it again will help.  When you say that God is the greatest conceivable being, you're saying that God has all the good qualities.  But goodness is a subjective judgement, so greatest possible being is a judgement made up of subjective judgements.  For every subjective judgement that says X is a great making quality, there is an equally valid subjective judgement which says that X is a bad making quality.  The reason is because qualities and properties are neither good or bad in and of themselves, they only become so when a subject attaches a value to them.  You cannot construct a greatest anything out of properties that are inherently neutral. So "greatest conceivable being" has no meaning other than as a religious catchphrase.

As I pointed out in the other thread, you are changing the term 'greatest' to 'good and bad' so you can use it in a moral sense (and declare it incoherent) when GCB Theology uses it in a qualitative sense. It is greater to be omnipotent than not. It is greater to be omniscient than not. It is greater to be morally perfect than not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it greater to be morally perfect..or immorally perfect?

[brewer]

As I pointed out in the other thread, you are changing the term 'greatest' to 'good and bad' so you can use it in a moral sense (and declare it incoherent) when GCB Theology uses it in a qualitative sense. It is greater to be omnipotent than not. It is greater to be omniscient than not. It is greater to be morally perfect than not.

It is greater to be Superman than not. It is greater to be a jedi knight than not. 

How about, it is greater to actually exist than not. In other words, fantasy takes a back seat.

[SteveII]

Is it greater to be morally perfect..or immorally perfect?  Or perhaps it;s greater top be both concurrently?  What could be greater than a being capable of doing impossible things?

Since being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly immoral would lead to utter chaos: inconsistent, destructive, the amount of gratuitous pain/suffering that could be caused is potentially infinite, I would go with the former.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you're using "great" in a moral sense as well..so there's no point in castigating another for it.

Why is it not "great" to be infinitely destructive?  Surely a creature capable of more destruction than any another creature is meaningfully greater? If you like, we can cut to the chase. Short of some non-arbitrary metric, your use of the term is an explicit invocation of your personal biases. How's that non arbitrary metric coming along...you ready to allow for it yet..........would you really maintain the above as a metric for "greatness" when we point out the gratuitous suffering magic book claims fairy god inflicted upon christer fantasy world? It's own inconsistency and destructiveness?

Make the world, break the world. All is good, everything sucks. Do this and not that, no..scratch that, do that but not this..wait, nevermind I'm handing out mulligans for all the things. Is your god closer to my infinitely destrutive, and therefore greater, being...or your milketoast pushover of good behavior?

[SteveII]

Then you're using "great" in a moral sense as well..so there's no point in castigating another for it.

Why is it not "great" to be infinitely destructive?  Surely a creature capable of more destruction than any another creature is meaningfully greater?  If you like, we can cut to the chase.  Short of some non-arbitrary metric, your use of the term is an explicit invocation of your personal biases.  How's that non arbitrary metric coming along...you ready to allow for it yet..........would you really maintain the above as a metric for "greatness" when we point out the gratuitous suffering magic book claims fairy god  inflicted upon christer fantasy world?  It's own inconsistency and destructiveness?

Make the world, break the world.  All is good, everything sucks.  Do this and not that, no..scratch that, do that but not this..wait, nevermind I'm handing out mulligans for all the things.  Is your god closer to my infinitely destrutive, and therefore greater, being...or your milketoast pushover of good behavior?

No...I was pointing out what 'perfectly immoral' would entail. I think it is clear that it is qualitatively better to be creative, loving, nurturing, structured, etc. because these attributes are more conducive to relationships between rational/thinking/emotional beings (us and God) than their opposites. 

I'm not going to debate the PoE in this thread.