Abstract

It appears to me that most traditional criticism of the Ontological argument misses the mark because the proponents imply a premise which, if true, would validate their argument on precisely the point attacked by the opponents. In view of this possibility, I propose the following analysis: state the traditional ontological argument without the implied premise; state the traditional criticisms, showing how they miss the mark; restate the ontological argument with the implied premise made clear; offer a defence of the implied premise; show how the ontological argument is still invalidated by another criticism; argue that the only way to avoid this other criticism is to borrow another premise from the cosmological argument, and that when these premises are borrowed the result is a valid form of the cosmological argument for the existence of a necessary being