The thing about the ontological argument is that it is entirely logical. There is just some dispute about what existence consists in or whether existence is even a predicate. The version of god you've presented doesn't hold together logically and, is in that sense, less compelling. The ontological arguments cannot be tossed out on the basis of logical reasoning, they are sound. The best one can do is what Eck, SW, and Gaunilo have done and just say they suck. Sadly, this isn't a fair move for philosophers. If a philosopher wants to dispense with the ontological argument he/she has to establish how that second premise is false. The mathematician or logician (see Descartes, Leibniz, Goedel...) recognizes that there are things that may exist without a material "form". For these guys, an empirically real god wasn't the answer but they were all on board with some version of the ontological argument.