ABSTRACT
The likely reaction of most people when they first encounter an ontological argument for the existence of God is that it seems to pull a very big rabbit out of an obviously empty hat. This chapter considers the criticisms which apply specifically to these arguments and not those which attack this whole way of thinking, the principal one of which is that the idea of necessity cannot apply to things but only to propositions. It examines the versions of Anselm's second argument and shows that they follow the same basic pattern and appear to oscillate between defining God into existence and proving a mere tautology while hiding the real and valid argument. The result of the survey of the Anselmian tradition is that it produced invalid arguments because it encrusts the valid core of those arguments with two assumptions or mere assertions: the unity of necessary being and the other attributes of that which is shown to be necessary.
