Related categories
Siblings:
45 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. István Aranyosi (2013). God, Mind, and Logical Space. Palgrave Macmillan.
    In God, Mind and Logical Space István Aranyosi takes the reader on a journey for the mind by revisiting the fundamental questions and the everlasting debates in philosophy of religion, ontology, and the philosophy of mind. The first part deals with issues in ontology, and the author puts forward a radical view according to which all thinkable objects and states of affairs have an equal claim to existence in a way that renders existence a relative notion. In the second part (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Lynne Rudder Baker (2013). Updating Anselm Again. Res Philosophica 90 (1):23-32.
    I set out four general facts about things that we can refer to and talk about, whether they exist or not. Then, I set out an argument for the existence of God. Myargument, like Anselm’s original argument, is a reductio ad absurdum: It shows that the assumption that God does not exist leads to a contradiction. Theargument is short and in ordinary language. Each line of the argument, other than the reductio premise, is justified by one of the general facts. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3. Einar Duenger Bohn (2012). Anselmian Theism and Indefinitely Extensible Perfection. Philosophical Quarterly 62 (249):671-683.
    The Anselmian Thesis is the thesis that God is that than which nothing greater can be thought. In this paper, I argue that such a notion of God is incoherent due to greatness being indefinitely extensible: roughly, for any great being that can be, there is another one that is greater, so there cannot be a being than which nothing greater can be. Someone will say that it is impossible to produce the best, because there is no perfect creature, and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. Hugh S. Chandler (1993). Some Ontological Arguments. Faith and Philosophy 10 (Jan):18-180.
    This was an attempt to show what is wrong with Anselm’s ‘Ontological Argument’ for the existence of God. My present view is that Peter Millican has given us a similar, but much better line of attack in his “The One Fatal Flaw….” Paper.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Edgar Danielyan (2015). On Behalf of St Anselm. Analysis 75 (3):405-407.
    Brian Garrett claims, in defence of Gaunilo’s Perfect Island and contra Plantinga, that ‘Properly understood, the great-making qualities of an island are maximal’. This article demonstrates that they are not, thus ‘the greatest conceivable island’ remains an incoherent concept and Gaunilo’s parody fails.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Gianluca Di Muzio (2015). A Simplified Ontological Argument and Fictional Entities. Think 14 (40):101-107.
    This paper shows that a recent, simplified version of St. Anselm's proof of the existence of God has its flank open to Gaunilo's objection. Reformulating Anselm's line of reasoning in terms of the distinction between mediated and unmediated causal powers, as the simplified proof does, makes it harder for Anselm's supporters to refute the objection that the ontological argument absurdly entails the existence of all kinds of fictional entities.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Domingos Faria (2016). Uma avaliação do argumento ontológico modal de Plantinga. Kairos: Journal of Philosophy and Science 15 (1):71-84.
    My aim in this paper is to critically assess Plantinga’s modal ontological argument for existence of God, such as it is presented in the book “The Nature of Necessity” (1974). Plantinga tries to show that this argument is (i) valid and (ii) it is rational to believe in his main premise, namely “there is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated”. On the one hand, I want to show that this argument is logically valid in both systems B (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Yiftach J. H. Fehige (2009). Thought Experimenting with God. Revisiting the Ontological Argument. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematicsche Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie 51 (3):249-267.
    The ontological argument is one of the most intriguing lines of reasoning in Western thought. Leaving behind debates over the proper relation between science and religion, it makes a simple move from conceptual analysis to existence in order to prove the existence of god. The ontological argument will be reviewed against the background of the contemporary debate on thought experiments. Assuming that the ontological argument fails as a philosophical proof, I will argue that its move from concept to existence might (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Yiftach J. H. Fehige (2009). Gottesbeweis oder Gedankenexperiment christlicher Theologie? Zu Dombrowskis Verteidigung des Ontologischen Arguments. Jahrbuch für Religionsphilosophie 8:69-91.
    In this paper I argue that Daniel A. Dombrowski's defence of a version of Anselm's ontological argument fails.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Gene Fendt (2005). The Relation of Monologion and Proslogion. Heythrop Journal 46 (2):149–166.
    This paper argues that Monologion and Proslogion though distinguishable are not really separable. They are distinct as "the way in" and "the way when one is in" but "the way in" reveals itself as a discovery of already being in; thus these ways are distinct in act, but not in being. Monologion moves from imaginary ignorance to real reverence, while Proslogion begins within reverence to achieve understanding.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11. Jakub Gomułka (2013). Wittgenstein i zagadka Anzelma. Analiza I Egzystencja 23:71-98.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Chris Heathwood (2011). The Relevance of Kant's Objection to Anselm's Ontological Argument. Religious Studies 47 (3):345-357.
    The most famous objection to the ontological argument is given in Kant's dictum that existence is not a real predicate. But it is not obvious how this slogan is supposed to relate to the ontological argument. Some, most notably Alvin Plantinga, have even judged Kant's dictum to be totally irrelevant to Anselm's version of the ontological argument. In this paper I argue, against Plantinga and others, that Kant's claim is indeed relevant to Anselm's argument, in the straightforward sense that if (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1990). Offices and God. Sophia 29:29-34.
    Pavel Tichy presents an interpretation of Anselm’s Proslogion III argument. Tichy presents an interpretation of this argument and raises doubts about one of the premises. The authors contend that Tichy’s interpretation of Anselm is wrong. The argument Tichy comes to raise doubts about is not Anselm’s.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Tomasz Jarmużek, Maciej Nowicki & Andrzej Pietruszczak (2006). An Outline of the Anselmian Theory of God. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 91 (1):317-330.
    The article presents a formalization of Anselm's so-called Ontological Arguments from Proslogion . The main idea of our research is to stay to the original text as close as is possible. We show, against some common opinions, that (i) the logic necessary for the formalization must be neither a purely sentential modal calculus, nor just non-modal first-order logic, but a modal first-order theory; (ii) such logic cannot contain logical axiom ⌜ A → ⋄ A ⌝; (iii) none of Anselm's reasonings (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Brian Leftow (2002). Anselm's Neglected Argument. Philosophy 77 (3):331-347.
    Anselm is commonly credited with two a priori arguments for God's existence, the non-modal argument of Proslogion 2 and a modal argument some find in Proslogion 3. But his Reply to Gaunilo contains a third. The argument as Anselm gives it has flaws, but they are not fatal, and its main premise can serve as the basis of a simpler, stronger argument.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. David Lewis (1970). Anselm and Actuality. Noûs 4 (2):175-188.
  17. T. L. Miethe (1977). The Ontological Argument: A Research Bibliography. Modern Schoolman 54 (2):148-166.
    Within the past two decades or so there has been a gradual renewal of interest in metaphysics in general and in the theistic arguments in particular. "the ontological argument: a research bibliography," is the most comprehensive bibliography ever done on this argument for god's existence, with over 330 items listed. the article is divided into the following categories: general histories of the argument; the argument in anselm; in the middle ages after anselm; from descartes to kant; in continental philosophy; in (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Thomas Morris (1987). Perfect Being Theology. Noûs 21 (1):19-30.
  19. G. Oppy (2011). On Behalf of the Fool. Analysis 71 (2):304-306.
    This paper responds to a previous paper by Gary Matthews and Lynne Rudder Baker. Their paper, in turn, was a response to my reply to an even earlier paper of theirs. (The relevant bibliographical details are in this paper.) They claim to have a new, improved, simple ontological argument. I argue that the new, simple ontological argument is not, in any way, improved.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. G. Oppy (2011). Objection to a Simplified Ontological Argument. Analysis 71 (1):105-106.
    This paper offers a short extension of the dialogue between Anselm and the Fool that is contained in "The Ontological Argument Simplified" by Gary Matthews and Lynne Rudder Baker. My extension of the dialogue ends with the Fool proclaiming that "what looks like an argument of elegant simplicity turns out to be no argument at all".
    Remove from this list   Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. G. Oppy (2008). Review: Daniel A. Dombrowski: Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response. [REVIEW] Mind 117 (467):690-693.
    Critical review of Daniel Dombrowski's "Rethinking the Ontological Argument".
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. G. Oppy (2000). Response to Gettings. Analysis 60 (4):363-367.
    This article is a reply to Michael Gettings' criticisms of a previous paper of mine on Godel's ontological argument. (All relevant bibliographical details may be found in the article.) I provide a patch to my previous -- faulty -- attempt to provide a parody of Godel's ontological argument on the model of Gaunilo's parody of Anselm's Proslogion 2 argument.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. G. Oppy (1996). Godelian Ontological Arguments. Analysis 56 (4):226-230.
    This paper aims to show that Godel's ontological argument can be parodied in much the same kind of way in which Gaunilo parodied Anselm's Proslogion argument. The parody in this paper fails; there is a patch provided in "Reply to Gettings" (Analysis 60, 4, 2000, 363-7).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Graham Oppy, Ontological Arguments. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Latest version of my SEP entry on ontological arguments, which first appeared in 1996. General discussion of ontological arguments. Includes a brief historical overview, a taxonomy of different kinds of ontological arguments, a brief survey of objections to the different kinds of ontological arguments identified in the taxonomy, and more extended discussions of Anselm's ontological argument (Proslogion 2), Godel's ontological argument, and Plantinga's ontological argument.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  25. Graham Oppy (2012). Response to Maydole. In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Ontos Verlag 50--487.
    This paper is my second contribution to the Szatkowski volume. In the first paper, I provide a critical discussion of Bob Maydole's ontological arguments. In this second paper, I respond to Maydole's critical response to my first paper. My overall verdict is that Maydole does not successfully defend his arguments against my critical attack.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Graham Oppy (2012). Pruss, Motivational Centrality, and Probabilities Attached to Possibility Premises in Modal Ontological Arguments. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (2):65-85.
    This paper is a critique of a paper by Alex Pruss. I argue that Pruss's attempt to motivate acceptance of the key possiblity premise in modal ontological arguments fails.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Graham Oppy (2011). Anselm and the Ontological Argument. In Jeff Jordan (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: The Key Thinkers. Continuum 22-43.
    This chapter gives an exposition and critique of Anselm's Proslogion II argument.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Graham Oppy (2009). Anslem's First Argument. In Charles Tandy (ed.), Death and Anti-Death Volume 7. Ria University Press 275-96.
    This paper discusses the preliminary argument in Proslogion 2: "The fool understands the words "that than which no greater can be conceived" when he hears them. Whatever is understood exists in the understanding. Therefore, that than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding." I discuss some of the many difficulties that this argument faces.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Graham Oppy (2009). Pruss's Ontological Arguments. Religious Studies 45 (3):355-363.
    First, I suggest that it is possible to make some further improvements upon the Gödelian ontological arguments that Pruss develops. Then, I argue that it is possible to parody Pruss's Gödelian ontological arguments in a way that shows that they make no contribution towards 'lowering the probability of atheism and raising the probability of theism'. I conclude with some remarks about ways in which the arguments of this paper can be extended to apply to the whole family of Gödelian ontological (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Graham Oppy (2008). Higher-Order Ontological Arguments. Philosophy Compass 3 (5):1066-1078.
    This paper discusses recent work on higher-order ontological arguments, including work on arguments due to Gödel, Maydole and Pruss. After setting out a range of these arguments, the paper seeks to highlight the principal difficulties that these kinds of arguments confront. One important aim of the paper is to cast light on Gödel's ontological argument by way of an examination of a range of related higher-order arguments.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Graham Oppy (2008). The Ontological Argument. In Paul Copan & Chad V. Meister (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Blackwell Pub.
    General discussion of ontological arguments. (Extended the discussion of ontological arguments in the then current version of my SEP entry on ontological arguments.).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Graham Oppy (2001). Reply to Langtry. Sophia 40 (1):73-80.
    This paper is a response to Bruce Langtry's criticisms of views advanced in my book *Ontological Arguments and Belief in God*. In particular, the paper discusses his criticisms of "the general objection" to ontological arguments that is developed in that work.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  33. Graham Oppy (1993). Makin's Ontological Argument (Again). Philosophy 68 (264):234 - 239.
    This paper is a reply to Stephen Makin's response to my previous criticism of his defense of a conceptual ontological argument. (All relevant bibliographical details are provided in this paper.).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Graham Oppy (1991). Makin on the Ontological Argument. Philosophy 66 (255):106 - 114.
    This paper is a critique of Stephen Makin's ontological argument. To some extent, the argument of this paper is recapitulated in *Ontological Arguments and Belief in God* (CUP, 1996).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Richard Oxenberg, In Search of the Ontological Argument.
    We can attend to the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, and amuse ourselves for a few hours unraveling its convoluted word-play, or we can seek to look beyond the flawed logic, to the search for God it expresses. From the perspective of this second approach the Ontological Argument proves to be more than a mere argument; it is a contemplative exercise. One can see in the argument a tantalizing attempt to capture in logical form the devotee’s experience of the presence (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. R. Michael Perry (2009). God Versus the Multiverse: An Ontological Argument Against the Existence of a Supreme Being: With a Hopeful Alternative. In Death and Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109). Ria University Press
    Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God is examined. It is concluded that Anselm errs in assuming the greatest "thing" must be a sentient being. The existence of God, then, is not established by Anselm’s argument, and is concluded to be unlikely for other reasons as well, one being that a perfected sentient being would be a logical impossibility. An afterlife and personal immortality are not precluded however; these goals could be reached by future scientific means. For now cryonics (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Lydia Schumacher (2011). The Lost Legacy of Anselm's Argument: Re-Thinking the Purpose of Proofs for the Existence of God. Modern Theology 27 (1):87-101.
    In his?Proslogion?, Anselm presents a proof for God?s existence which has attracted a tremendous amount of scholarly attention. In spite of all that has been said about this proof and proofs for God?s existence more generally, scholarly consensus seems to dissipate when it comes to determining whether theistic proofs are persuasive and sound. In this article, I will argue that there is a way to provide compelling proof for the existence of God. To substantiate this claim, I will not attempt (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38. Shaun Smith, Doctrine of Existence as a Perfection.
    This paper examines the doctrine of existence as a perfection. Examining some of the comments from Leroy Howe, there is an immense amount of confusion with the idea of existence as a perfection. Leaning on some level of the cosmological argument, I believe it is Descartes that brings forth a proper understanding of why existence is a great making property. However, there is a level of irrelevance between the Kantian problem existence as a predicate and the nature of Anselm's argument.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Shaun Smith, The Ontological Argument: Past, Present, and Future? Sententias.
    This article serves to explore the historical development of the ontological argument from Anselm to Present. Initially, the main goal is to introduce the lay reader to one of the most perplexing arguments for the theistic conception of God. Logically, this is an a priori argument, similar to one of a mathematical proof. Oddly, the argument has sort of fallen out of place in contemporary philosophy, apart from a reboot from Alvin Plantinga. The goal is to illustrate that the initial (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Timothy Stanley (2008). Returning Barth to Anselm. Modern Theology 24 (3):413-437.
    This article focuses on Barth's explication of Anselm's Proslogion 2-4 in his book on Anselm and attempts to show how Anselm helped clarify for Barth the ontological nature of his own early theology, in particular what he meant by the “is” in his affirmation “God is God.” My contention is that Barth's continual pointing to Anselm's Fides Quaerens Intellectum as a vital key to his own theology should not be overlooked. In fact, I argue that only by returning Barth to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Jim Stone (1989). Anselm's Proof. Philosophical Studies 57 (1):79 - 94.
  42. Peter A. Sutton, Biting Gaunilo's Bullet.
    Gaunilo assumes that there is no greatest conceivable island, and most philosophers have followed him in this assumption. But the option was open for Anselm (and remains open for us) to bite the bullet and ‘give him his island.’ I argue that such a response is perfectly reasonable for a Platonist like Anselm, and that even a theist who isn’t a Platonist can tolerate the island as a fairly minor addition his or her ontology.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Michael Wiitala (2012). Anselm’s Ontological Argument and Aristotle’s Elegktikōs Apodeixai. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 86:129-140.
    Saint Anselm’s ontological argument is usually interpreted either (1) as an attempt to deductively prove God’s existence or (2) as a form of prayer, which is not intended to “prove” God’s existence, but rather to deepen the devotion of those who already believe. In this paper I attempt to find a mean between these two interpretations, showing that while Anselm’s argument is not a deductive proof, it is nevertheless a proof of God’s existence. I argue that Anselm’s ontological argument is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Thomas Williams (2009). Anselm of Canterbury. In Graham Robert Oppy & Nick Trakakis (eds.), The History of Western Philosophy of Religion. Oxford University Press II: 73-84.
    Anselm on faith seeking understanding, "the reason of faith," and the Monologion and Proslogion arguments for the existence of God.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Eric Wilson (2010). The Ontological Argument Revisited: A Reply to Rowe. Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 15 (1):37 - 44.
    Saint Anselm’s ontological argument is perhaps the most intriguing of all the traditional speculative proofs for the existence of God. Yet, his argument has been rejected outright by many philosophers. Most challenges stem from the basic conviction that no amount of logical analysis of a concept that is limited to the bounds of the "understanding" will ever be able to "reason" the existence in "reality" of any thing answering such a limited concept. However, it is not the intent of this (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography