What do you think of this argument for God?

[Nonpareil]

I think the fact that you are arguing against premise two, which is true by definition, shows that you still need to do your homework and don't understand the type of argument and the statements being made...

Again, ipse dixit - there is no reason to accept that this premise is true. Nor does "possible world" have any actual, coherent meaning (this could imply an attempt to tie into modal logic, in which case this specific premise would be slightly less incoherent, but the argument as a whole still collapses).

Please read before responding. It would make this whole thing much easier.

If premise two does mean to bring modal logic into the equation, then it is true by definition, yes. It solves exactly no problems with the rest of the argument, and since I took pains to point this out myself, I don't really see what your issue is.