looking for a solution on this one:

Use modal logic to critically evaluate the following argument. I.e. Identify the premises and the conclusion and translate the premises and conclusion into S5. Then either show that in S5 the conclusion really is a consequence of the premises or show that the argument commits a modal fallacy.

That God exists strictly entails that necessarily God exists. Therefore if it is possible that God exists then God exists, and if it is possible that God does not exist then God does not exist.