The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Angrboda]

In Plantinga's version, it is a part of the definition of maximally great being that it exists necessarily. It is also a part of the background assumptions that this is a conscious being, and not simply some prior natural cause. Thus premise one states that it's possible that there is a conscious being that exists necessarily. This appears to be the crux of the matter, whether or not that is actually possible. We don't know. So we don't know if premise one is sound. It doesn't seem probable that the necessarily existing entity that started everything was also a fully developed conscious being, so that casts doubt on the possibility that such a first entity is possible. The rest is just elucidating the analytical truths contained in premise one. So it really is one premise away from being argument by definition.