No, that argument defines God into existence by assuming a perfect being exists, because it could not be perfect without existing.
When I read that argument, the first thought I always have is, "Why is existence even important to perfection, especially in relation to God? I know that's irrelevant and neither here nor there, but it leads to a feeling of, "Oh, fuck this shit." Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm thinking that if existence is a necessary attribute of perfection, then I can think of a lot of things must be more perfect than God, because most things actually do exist, while God's existence remains a question. Existence is a pretty fundamental property. If you have to prove something exists, you are on ice that is much too thin to support something as weightless as an argument.
I know that if that was my answer to a question on a philosophy test, the professor would flunk me. But I don't care. Philosophy of that kind has already flunked, and arguments that linger on past the point of "Oh, fuck this shit," don't make sense either, because arguments require two people speaking the same language, and neither of those languages can be Gibberish.
All of those 18th Century god proofs are nothing but bushels of words to hide logical fallacies.