Ontological argument redivivus

You know, this article is the first I've come across that goes anyway to persuading me that Anselm's ontological argument is anything more than a conjuring trick with semantics. Here's the nub of the helpful restatement.

Contra Dawkins, the ontological argument can be expressed as a logically valid syllogism:
Premise 1: By definition, if it is possible that God exists, then God exists

Premise 2: It is possible that God exists

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

In fact it may also help to see it from the other side, so to speak:

to deny the existence of God one does have to make the claim that God's existence is logically impossible, because one cannot coherently claim that God fails to exist despite being logically possible. This seems to be a price that many non-theists are willing to pay, despite the fact that no independent argument has ever shown the concept of God to be incoherent.

I can see this being something to which I return for RE teaching.

Culture Watch - Exploring the message behind the media: Filed in: philosophy, God, existence, ontological_argument, logic