What do you think of this argument for God?

[Nonpareil]

Which, as I said, is fair enough, but I really don't think anyone could be blamed for concluding that you reject the argument based on you saying that you reject the argument as phrased.

Okay, I do not believe in the argument stated or otherwise

Then I am doubly confused as to what your objection to my post actually was, but I think that we can let the matter lie.

As a bit of information, though, in case you didn't know already:

the argument as it pertains to the God of creation doesn't take into account that He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, meaning we cannot determine what is possible with God. Those three things are outside of any understanding we could have about them other than the basic, He has no limits. However when one studies the scriptures we find that God is limited to who He is, but then that covers a vastness that is inconceivable for man. That argument and all arguments about God by man in the end puts limits on a limitless God. Because God is limitless to our mortal minds any limits God might have would be inconceivable to us.

This is almost exactly Thomas Aquinas' first objection to the argument. God is inconceivable, and thus Anselm's original formulation - which was of the "God is necessary if conceivable" type - fails because the human mind cannot actually comprehend the concept of a "maximally great being".