European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):206–218 (2003)
|Abstract||Immanuel Kant’s well known and thoroughly discussed criticism of the cosmological argument, hereafter ‘CA’, is that it presupposes or depends upon the cogency of the ontological argument, hereafter ‘OA’. Call this criticism ‘the Dependency Thesis’. It is fair to say that the received view on the matter is that Kant failed to establish the Dependency Thesis.1 In what follows, I argue that the received view is mistaken. I begin by rehearsing the standard objection to what is typically taken to be Kant’s primary argument for the Dependency Thesis. I defend Kant by presenting a different argument for his thesis. This argument is not vulnerable to the standard objection, and there is good reason to think that Kant had such an argument in mind.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert Merrihew Adams (2000). God, Possibility, and Kant. Faith and Philosophy 17 (4):425-440.
Yujin Nagasawa (2007). Millican on the Ontological Argument. Mind 116 (464):1027 - 1039.
J. William Forgie (2003). The Alleged Dependency of the Cosmological Argument on the Ontological. Faith and Philosophy 20 (3):364-370.
Lisa Shabel (2004). Kant's "Argument From Geometry". Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (2):195-215.
J. William Forgie (1995). The Cosmological and Ontological Arguments: How Saint Thomas Solved the Kantian Problem. Religious Studies 31 (1):89 - 100.
Elliott Sober (2004). The Design Argument. In William Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell Pub..
Chris Heathwood (2011). The Relevance of Kant's Objection to Anselm's Ontological Argument. Religious Studies 47:345–57.
William F. Vallicella (2000). Does the Cosmological Argument Depend on the Ontological? Faith and Philosophy 17 (4):441-458.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #40,771 of 548,973 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,222 of 548,973 )
How can I increase my downloads?