Question

Hello Rabbi, Norman Malcolm argued in favor of the ontological argument, and this is what he said, from Wikipedia:
“Malcolm’s modal proof
 
Norman Malcolm tried to improve the ontological argument by removing some of the obvious weaknesses in Anselm’s argument. He drew a parallel between two possible logical worlds, in one of which there exists an eternal being A, and in the other there does not. Since the existence of A cannot depend on any contingent circumstances in the world in which it is found, then if it is not found in any world, its existence is altogether logically impossible. And conversely, if it is found in any possible logical world, it must be found in all of them. That is, God’s existence is either logically impossible or logically necessary.
 
The next step, according to Malcolm, is to examine whether the existence of an eternal being is self-contradictory. According to Malcolm, we have no reason to assume that it is, and from this it follows that God’s existence is not logically impossible and therefore is logically necessary. The proof is as follows:
 
God, as a conceptual matter, is an unlimited being.
The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible.
The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible.
Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary.
Malcolm removes here Anselm’s main weakness — the claim that existence both in the conceptual world and in the real world is better than existence in the conceptual world alone.”
What do you think?