 One can see from the foregoing that Plantinga-type objections are not compelling. The reason, again, is that DDS cannot be made sense of within a nonconstituent ontology.  It can be made sense of, assuming it can be made sense of, only within a constituent ontology, the style of ontology presupposed by its main defender, Aquinas. A nonconstituent ontologist like Plantinga may be represented as arguing by Modus Ponens: If God exemplifies his nature, then he is distinct from it; God exemplifies his nature; ergo, God is distinct from his nature, and DDS is false. But the constituent ontologist is justified in switching to Modus Tollens: If God exemplifies his nature, then he is distinct from it; God is not distinct from his nature; ergo, God does not exemplify his nature but has his nature by being identical with it.