I'm familiar with the following:...
3. The ontological argument....
However, 3. the ontological proof does prove EVERYTHING about God (omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence), after all God is the most perfect being possible in that argument. — TheMadFool

Which just shows that you are almost as ignorant as I am on these matters - the difference being that I've stumbled across a book or two and thereby am a little less ignorant than I was. We, and most folks, do not understand the "ontological" argument, although we persuade ourselves that we do. But we don't even have to go that far to detect unsound ground. We need simply reflect a little on the words we use - our words. "omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence." All-kind, all-knowing, all-powerful: our words, our concepts. Well might they apply to an idea of ours. But the task for those who claim a material existence for God is to show how these ideas, or any such ideas, derive from that material existence and to make clear how they, our ideas and concepts, can apply this being. And to facilitate this demonstration, the existence is granted for the sake of argument.

One start might be to try to reconcile, even as ideas, the notions of omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence, being contained in one materially existing being.

In all this I argue from a definition, plus observations/things we already know about, to a conclusion about something's existence. — bert1

You've done a pretty good of arguing that God is space. You had to tailor "omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence" to fit. And there are people whose understanding of God is that he is everywhere, is all that is.

But it implies there is no place God cannot be. That leads to a variety of problems. Further, you have attributed to space, through doctored concepts, that which space already is, and has. Why then call it "God"? Why not just space?

To insist I start with existence and nothing else is strange, and I don't understand why you would do that. — bert1

The folks being addressed in this thread - challenged, if you will, are those who claim a) that God exists materially, and b) that they can prove it. In short they proceed from notion to idea to argument and as a deduction from argument, to material existence. It's the last step that's a problem.

I have no difficulty with beliefs. We all cherish some or other belief. But beliefs have no need of being either instantiated or substantiated; they only need to be believed. To those who insist on existence for their beliefs, the challenge is to make their case. If in this thread that's been done and I overlooked it, please straighten me out!

Fool says there is no God. Even greater fool says, if there is God, so what.

This says not only that you do not understand St. Anselm's "proof" - if that's what you're invoking - but that you have not troubled to read or understand this thread. Clever fellow, though, to jump in with a non sequitor.

non sequitor — tim wood

You literally have to be a fool in order to be an atheist. That's an absolute. What fool says, then, in this case you, is irrelevant.

Of course, there's an absurdity of me trying to explain something to a fool, which I'll refrain from further on...

You have completely missed the question. I'm not an atheist, and until and unless you offer your understanding of what an atheist is, it is foolish of you to characterize one in any way. But I'll agree in so far as some atheism seems foolish to me. Now why not try reading the OP and seeing if after that you have anything useful to contribute.