> The main problem with ontological arguments (and why, even as a Christian, I don't like them) is because they seem to embed the conclusion in their first prem

> The main problem with ontological arguments (and why, even as a Christian, I don't like them) is because they seem to embed the conclusion in their first premise But that is also true of the informal rhetorical arguments that are more common in (christian) apologetics. The gift of formal proofs is that they make explicit and unavoidable this embedding of conclusion in premise, which is fundamental to all (epistemologically rational) apologetics