I thought about it a bit after I posted the above comment, and decided that it would be good practice for my courses in Logic and Philosophy if I were to dissect comforter's syllogism a bit. Let's review his original argument:
Major Premise: Either God exists or [comforter is] Elmer Fudd.
Minor Premise: [comforter is] not Elmer Fudd.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
As it stands, comforter's syllogism is valid, in that, if the premises are true, the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed. However, the syllogism is not sound, because each of the premises is flawed.
The Major Premise commits the fallacy of bifurcation or false dichotomy, which consists of "considering a distinction or classification exclusive and exhaustive when other alternatives exist." (Engel, S. Morris. With Good Reason, 6th ed. p. 144) A classic example of such a fallacy is "You're either for me or against me!" - obviously, other options exist. We can imagine a universe in which God does not exist, but at the same time, comforter is not Elmer Fudd. Since we cannot guarantee the truth of this premise, the syllogism fails the test of soundness.
The Minor Premise also fails, but on different grounds. comforter asserts that he is not Elmer Fudd. I question whether comforter is intelligent and self-aware enough to know with certainty that he is not Elmer Fudd. Therefore, the premise fails under the fallacy of appeal to dubious authority. This is defined as "The appeal to an expert who is not in fact an expert in the area of concern" (Moody Bible Institute Online Studies, Introduction to Philosophy TH0250, Lesson 2 Supplement, Argumentation in Philosophy, p. 7). Again, because the premise fails, the syllogism also fails as to soundness.
By the way, I did the above just for fun, but also because idiotic arguments of the sort that comforter advanced make those of us who believe that there are intelligent reasons to believe in God look bad.