What do you think of this argument for God?

[Nonpareil]

This particular form of the argument is using modal logic.   How do you think that this is incoherent at all given this information.

1 All elephants are pink
2 Nellie is an elephant
3 Therefore Nellie is pink

I'm always bewildered that people feel the need to reject every premise, and go out of their way to do it. Often looking foolish doing so. Perhaps you would like your critique.

Would you rather we swallowed it all without question? Do you know the term for someone like that?

While I appreciate the attempt at assistance, I do actually have to point out that RoadRunner was not entirely off the mark here. I spoke poorly and carelessly, and the fault is mine, not his - at least insofar as pointing out that my post still indicated a flaw with Premise Two that would not actually be there if the argument was intending to make use of modal logic (though, again, I did actually point out that the use of modal logic was a distinct possibility).

The ontological argument is still bunk for every other reason I listed, as premise two being coherent is not at all equivalent to the rest of the argument being correct. But I did phrase my post poorly, and he was right to point out the incorrect implication there.