News of Ontological Argument's Death Premature (i.e. Dewey Wins)

Onto (as we seem to be calling it now) is not dependent upon cosmo/kalam.

Let's examine Anselm's original argument (see below), note that there is no mention of necessary vs. contingent.

"God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.… And [God] assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being thou art, O Lord, our God."

And Anselm's got a modern supporter on his side also. As Plantinga so eloquently puts it:

- A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W; and
- A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.

Nowhere does he state that God is a "necessary non-contingent being". I'll admit that all that necessary vs. contingent talk was "Cosmological baggage" that we were bringing into the ontological argument, but as you can see it's not present in the original argument or the modern interpretation of it.

Now where are those Zoinks again? Maybe they went into a "Death Spin"...