Questions to Yajur. (Or, someone having read that posted claim to analysis.)
1. What argument -- do exist-- does not fail?
2. What criterion -- to might exist-- did a failure-success distinction have?
3. What definition -- to only exist-- for contradiction to formulate, in principle, never has incoherence?
4. If and only If Questions [1.], [2.], [3.], have correct answer, then and only then has existence proof -- (thereby not refuting argument from incompatibility to incoherency)?
5. To whose iteration --does exist somewhere in text-- of 'The Ontological Argument' has referral, here?
6. If --indeed-- someone's understanding matters for others to not exist, does 'Yajur' refer nothing not existing to whom has not any understanding of anything (--.Or is an objection not claimed, understood by Yajur)?

Attention about Critique for Incoherency.
Were there an older version of theism, more classical -- there is a most!-- than that which is claimed,
was gender to really make a difference, for purpose of reference, had some one language not one pronoun ? Thusly: What should -- morality or ethic?-- be argued just to never conflict with what would --will or power?-- be argued, means for example that and only that, that morality does co-derive will-to-power, mirrors a thesis so gave earlier, so then subjugation is correct, because an argument might fail? While the Nietzsche is in the background sentiment is appreciated --by the way: this is a judgement & analysis & comment-- what whips about freely is a characteristic belief, for coherency to not have been morally bankrupt, neither to have need to understand when so -- i.e. being morally nil-- why. Rather. Understanding to not exist, thereby "thus fail", could be actually an unpalatable taste, even to follow the remit to dare think for oneself (Dares can always be not followed.) A reply awaits, a whip.