By the way, I am not asking whether this argument is sound or not. I just want to have it formulated in understandable terms for laymen.
From what I have been told the argument is basically saying that
If God (maximally perfect being which none greater can be conceived)exists, God necessarily exists.
Something necessarily exists only if it is logically necessary.
God is not logically necessary because something is logically necessary only if its existence follows logically from its definition, and the existence of God does not follow logically from its definition.
So, God does not exist.
Why does the definition of God by Pollack not follow logically from its definition? THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE UPON THE WHOLE ARGUMENT RESTS THAT GOD IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY.