It appears to me that most traditional criticism of the Ontological argument misses the mark because the proponents imply a premise which, if true, would validate their argument on precisely the point attacked by the opponents. In view of this possibility, I propose the following analysis:
(1) state the traditional ontological argument without the implied premise;
(2) state the traditional criticisms, showing how they miss the mark;
(3) restate the ontological argument with the implied premise made clear;
(4) offer a defence of the implied premise;
(5) show how the ontological argument is still invalidated by another criticism;
(6) argue that the only way to avoid this other criticism is to borrow another premise from the cosmological argument, and
(7) that when these premises are borrowed the result is a valid form of the cosmological argument for the existence of a necessary being.