Question to Bertuzzi...
The FTA is essentially a "probabilistic argument", yes? Ie, it intends to show that the probability of God is much greater than the probability of brute naturalism, yes? And any probabilistic argument for X is essentially an argument that ~X is at least possible, yes? Ie, if ~X were impossible, we wouldn't try to argue that P(~X) << 1, we'd argue that P(~X) = 0, yes?
That said, here is my question...Do you consider it dishonest to use the ontological argument in conjunction with the FTA? After all, FTA leaves the door open to the possibility of not God, and the very possibility of not God renders it necessary that there is no God in the ontological argument.