The ontological argument in modern form

Shalom Rabbi, Norman Malcolm argued for the ontological argument and this is what he said from Wikipedia.
Malcolm's modal proof
 
Norman Malcolm attempted to improve the ontological argument by removing some of the obvious weaknesses in Anselm's argument. He equated two logically possible worlds, one in which an eternal being A exists and the other in which he does not. Since A's existence cannot depend on any possible circumstances in the world in which he is found, if he is not found in any world, his existence is logically impossible at all. Conversely, if he is found in any logically possible world, he must be found in all of them. That is, God's existence is either logically impossible or logically necessary.
 
The next step, for Malcolm, is to examine whether the existence of an eternal being is self-contradictory. According to Malcolm, we have no reason to assume that this is the case and hence, the existence of God is not logically impossible and therefore, logically necessary. The proof is as follows:
 
God, as a conceptual matter, is an unlimited being.
The existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary or impossible.
The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible.
Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary.
Malcolm here removes Anselm's main weakness — the claim that existence in both the conceptual and the real world is better than existence in the conceptual world." What do you think?