Abstract

R l purtill has claimed that the ontological argument that plantinga presents in "the nature of necessity" is basically the same as that offered in hartshorne's "the logic of perfection" and that it falls victim to the same criticisms. i argue that plantinga's ontological argument is different enough "not" to fall victim to purtill's criticisms. what makes plantinga's argument different, however, also makes it vulnerable to a different criticism: the god of plantinga's conclusion is not a being greater than which none can be conceived