What do you think of this argument for God?

[Whateverist]

Then too we should probably make some attempt to clarify which criteria are essential in the greatest possible being stakes. Are those criteria objective in some sense other than it says so?

---

I heard an argument like this:

1. God is the greatest possible being.

2. God is a necessary being, which means that God exists in every possible world (If God exists). 

3. If God exists in one possible world, God must logically exist in every possible world. 

4. Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that every aspect of God (being possible) exists in some possible world.

5. Therefore, God exists (in all possible worlds, including ours).

I actually just structured the premises this way myself but is the same idea as an argument I heard before. 

What do you think of it?

1.  No

2.  No

3.  No

4. No

5.  No

Since 5 wrongs make a right, therefore god.

Riddle me this: who has five wrongs and no rights?

---

I heard an argument like this:

1. God is the greatest possible being.

2. God is a necessary being, which means that God exists in every possible world (If God exists). 

3. If God exists in one possible world, God must logically exist in every possible world. 

4. Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that every aspect of God (being possible) exists in some possible world.

5. Therefore, God exists (in all possible worlds, including ours).

I actually just structured the premises this way myself but is the same idea as an argument I heard before. 

What do you think of it?

1.  No

2.  No

3.  No

4. No

5.  No

Since 5 wrongs make a right, therefore god.

Riddle me this: who has five wrongs and no rights?