Abstract

Recent developments in metaphysics and the philosophy of logic have had a negative impact on the modal ontological argument. The goal of my dissertation is to assess the extent of that damage. With this goal in mind, I frame an investigation around three paradigmatic versions, each of which represents a logically distinct type found in the literature. By appealing to a widely-held intuition concerning the origin of material artifacts, I argue that the first of those versions fails because it depends for its validity on an inappropriate system of logic for metaphysical modality. I then demonstrate that a variation on that intuition leads to the same result for the second version. It, too, is dependent on an inappropriate system of logic. Against similar objections, however, I defend the validity of the third version. Because it escapes the fate of its predecessors, this final version demonstrates that the modal ontological argument is not completely invalidated by recent developments in philosophical analysis