Related categories
Subcategories:
284 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 284
Material to categorize
  1. Bashar Alhoch (2016). Stephen Davis’s Objection to the Second Ontological Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 80 (1):3-9.
    Stephen Davis has argued that the second ontological argument fails as a theistic proof because it ignores the logical possibility of what he calls an ontologically impossible being. By an “ontologically impossible being” he means a being that does not exist, logically-possibly exists, and would exist necessarily if it existed. In this brief essay, I argue, first, that even if an OIB is logically possible, its logical possibility is irrelevant to the OA at issue; and second, that an OIB is (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. R. E. Allen (1961). The Ontological Argument. Philosophical Review 70 (1):56-66.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3. William P. Alston (1960). The Ontological Argument Revisited. Philosophical Review 69 (4):452-474.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. C. Anthony Anderson (1990). Some Emendations of Gödel's Ontological Proof. Faith and Philosophy 7 (3):291-303.
    Kurt Gödel’s version of the ontological argument was shown by J. Howard Sobel to be defective, but some plausible modifications in the argument result in a version which is immune to Sobel’s objection. A definition is suggested which permits the proof of some of Godel’s axioms.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  5. Leslie Armour (1986). Newman, Anselm and Proof of the Existence of God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 19 (1/2):87 - 93.
  6. Leslie Armour (1960). The Ontological Argument and the Concepts of Completeness and Selection. Review of Metaphysics 14 (2):280 - 291.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Oded Balaban & Asnat Avshalom (1990). The Ontological Argument Reconsidered. Journal of Philosophical Research 15:279-310.
    The ontological argument--first proposed by St. Anselm and subsequently deveIoped by Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel and Marx--furnishes a key to understanding the relationship between thought and reality. In this article we shall focus on Hegel’s attitude towards the ontological argument as set out in his Science of Logic, where it appears as a paradigm of the relationship between thought and reality. It should be remarked, moreover, that our choice of the subject was not random and that it was seIected for (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Edward G. Ballard (1958). On Kant's Refutation of Metaphysics. New Scholasticism 32 (2):235-252.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Albert G. A. Balz (1953). Concerning the Ontological Argument. Review of Metaphysics 7 (2):207 - 224.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Jonathan Barnes (1972). The Ontological Argument. [New York]St. Martin's Press.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  11. Clint I. Barrett (2011). A Careful Reading of St. Anselm's Ontological Argument. Philosophy and Theology 23 (2):217-230.
    Although philosophers have long agreed that Anselm’s PROSLOGION contains what is often called the ontological argument (but not by Anselm himself), they do not agree about just what that argument is. In this paper, I do two things: (1) I set out a careful, precise statement of the argument in the PROSLOGION, taking due account of the historical, personal, philosophical, and theological contexts of Anselm’s thought. (2) Having disembarrassed the argument of some common misunderstandings and placed it in its proper (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Pierfrancesco Basile (2010). Kant, Spinoza, and the Metaphysics of the Ontological Proof. Metaphysica 11 (1):17-37.
    This paper provides an interpretation and evaluation of Spinoza's highly original version of the ontological proof in terms of the concept of substance instead of the concept of perfection in the first book of his Ethics. Taking the lead from Kant'€™s critique of ontological arguments in the Critique of Pure Reason, the paper explores the underlying ontological and epistemological presuppositions of Spinoza'€™s proof. The main topics of consideration are the nature of Spinoza's definitions, the way he conceives of the relation (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13. William H. Baumer (1966). Ontological Arguments Still Fail. The Monist 50 (1):130-144.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Ronald E. Beanblossom (1985). Another Note on the Ontological Argument. Faith and Philosophy 2 (2):175-178.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Bob Brecher (1976). Descartes' Causal Argument for the Existence of God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7 (3):418 - 432.
  16. R. Brecher (1975). Pure Objects and the Ontological Argument. Sophia 14 (3):10-18.
  17. Keith Burgess-Jackson (1994). Anselm, Gaunilo, and Lost Island. Philosophy and Theology 8 (3):243-249.
    The received view is that Gaunilo’s attempted refutation of Anselm’s ontological argument fails. But those who believe this do not agree as to why it fails. The aim of this essay is to show that whether the attempted refutation succeeds depends crucially on how one formulates the so-called greatmaking principle on which Anselm’s argument rests . This principle has largely been ignored by contemporary philosophers, who have chosen to focus on other aspects of the argument. I sketch two analyses of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  18. Elizabeth Burns (2009). Daniel A. Dombrowski: Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response. [REVIEW] Heythrop Journal 50 (4):719-721.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. T. Ryan Byerly (2010). The Ontomystical Argument Revisited. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 67 (2):95 - 105.
    I argue that Alexander Pruss's ontomystical arguments should not be endorsed without further argumentative support of their premises. My specific targets are his claims that (i) Śamkara's principle is true and (ii) the high mystics had phenomenal experiences of radical dependence and as of a maximally great being. Against (i), I urge a host of counterexamples. The only ways I can see for Pruss to respond to these counterexamples end up falsifying (ii). The key problem which leads to this conclusion (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. John F. Callahan (1964). I. The “Ontological” Argument for the Existence of God. The Saint Augustine Lecture Series 18:1-47.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Douglas I. Campbell, Jack Copeland & Zhuo-Ran Deng (forthcoming). The Inconceivable Popularity of Conceivability Arguments. Philosophical Quarterly.
    Famous examples of conceivability arguments include (i) Descartes’ argument for mind-body dualism, (ii) Kripke's ‘modal argument’ against psychophysical identity theory, (iii) Chalmers’ ‘zombie argument’ against materialism, and (iv) modal versions of the ontological argument for theism. In this paper, we show that for any such conceivability argument, C, there is a corresponding ‘mirror argument’, M. M is deductively valid and has a conclusion that contradicts C's conclusion. Hence, a proponent of C—henceforth, a ‘conceivabilist’—can be warranted in holding that C's premises (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Toni Vogel Carey (2005). The Ontological Argument and the Sin of Hubris. Philosophy Now 53:24-27.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Peter A. Carmichael (1977). The Ontological Argument at Work in Religion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 38 (2):247-250.
    The creeds of religion, not being open to objective review and confirmation, are subjective only. they presume that the idea internally raises the object. this is the ontological argument extended. it remains internal, of no external import, and issues in solipsism.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. John C. Carney (2005). A Postmodern Argument From Tradition for the Existence of God. E. Mellen Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Albert A. Cock (1918). XV.—The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 18 (1):363-384.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Albert A. Cock (1917). The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 18:363 - 384.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. R. J. Connelly (1969). The Ontological Argument. New Scholasticism 43 (4):530-554.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Matthew R. Cosgrove (1974). Thomas Aquinas on Anselm's Argument. Review of Metaphysics 27 (3):513 - 530.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Donald Cress (1973). Does Descarte's ‛Ontological Argument' Really Stand on its Own? Studi Internazionali Di Filosofia 5:127-140.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Gregor Damschen (2011). Questioning Gödel's Ontological Proof: Is Truth Positive? European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (1):161-169.
    In his "Ontological proof", Kurt Gödel introduces the notion of a second-order value property, the positive property P. The second axiom of the proof states that for any property φ: If φ is positive, its negation is not positive, and vice versa. I put forward that this concept of positiveness leads into a paradox when we apply it to the following self-reflexive sentences: (A) The truth value of A is not positive; (B) The truth value of B is positive. Given (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Stephen T. Davis (1976). Does the Ontological Argument Beg the Question? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 7 (4):433 - 442.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  32. Philip E. Devine (1975). The Religious Significance of the Ontological Argument. Religious Studies 11 (1):97 - 116.
    I discuss the religious implications of accepting the ontological argument as sound. in particular, i attempt to show in detail how the argument fails to validate religious belief.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Daniel A. Dombrowski (2006). Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response. Cambridge University Press.
    In recent years, the ontological argument and theistic metaphysics have been criticised by philosophers working in both the analytic and continental traditions. Responses to these criticisms have primarily come from philosophers who make use of the traditional, and problematic, concept of God. In this volume, Daniel A. Dombrowski defends the ontological argument against its contemporary critics, but he does so by using a neoclassical or process concept of God, thereby strengthening the case for a contemporary theistic metaphysics. Relying on the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Clement Dore (1996). On the Existence and Relevance of God. St. Martin's Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Clement Dore (1975). Examination of an Ontological Argument. Philosophical Studies 28 (5):345 - 356.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. James Patrick Downey (1986). A Primordial Reply to Modern Gaunilos. Religious Studies 22 (1):41 - 49.
    Donald R. Gregory has recently argued that the monk Gaunilo's response to St Anselm's ontological argument succeeds in showing what is fundamentally wrong with any ontological argument, including modern modal versions. He holds that the Gaunilo strategy in fact demonstrates what it alleges, that reasoning which parallels the form and intent ofAnselm's reductio argument can ‘prove’ a priori the existence of quite unacceptable entities.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Robert E. Pezet (forthcoming). An Impossible Proof of God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion:1-27.
    A new version of the ontological argument for the existence of God is outlined and examined. After giving a brief account of some traditional ontological arguments for the existence of God, where their defects are identified, it is explained how this new argument is built upon their foundations and surmounts their defects. In particular, this version uses the resources of impossible worlds to plug the common escape route from standard modal versions of the ontological argument. After outlining the nature of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. Frank B. Ebersole (1978). Everyman's Ontological Argument. Philosophical Investigations 1 (4):1-15.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. A. C. Ewing (1969). Further Thoughts on the Ontological Argument. Religious Studies 5 (1):41 - 48.
    A little while ago I thought the ontological argument dead and buried beyond any possible hope of resurrection and no philosophical event has caused me much greater surprise than its revival by a member of the very linguistic school to whose line of thinking it seemed most alien and who were held to have given it its quietus once for all. I am tempted to welcome any relapse into metaphysics by a member of this school as being some sign of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Gene Fendt (2009). Number, Form, Content: Hume's 'Dialogues'. Philosophy 84 (329):393 - 412.
    This paper’s aim is threefold. First, I wish to show that there is an analogy in section nine that arises out of the interaction of the interlocutors; this analogy is, or has, a certain comic adequatio to the traditional (e.g., Aquinas’s) arguments about proofs for the existence of God. Second, Philo’s seemingly inconsequential example of the strange necessity of products of 9 in section nine is a perfected analogy of the broken arguments actually given in that section, destroying Philo’s earlier (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. J. William Forgie (2008). How is the Question 'is Existence a Predicate?' Relevant to the Ontological Argument? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 64 (3):117 - 133.
    It is often said that the ontological argument fails because it wrongly treats existence as a first-level property or predicate. This has proved a controversial claim, and efforts to evaluate it are complicated by the fact that the words ‘existence is not a property/predicate’ have been used by philosophers to make at least three different negative claims: (a) one about a first-level phenomenon possessed by objects like horses, stones, you and me; (b) another about the logical form of assertions of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. J. William Forgie (1991). The Modal Ontological Argument and the Necessary a Posteriori. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 29 (3):129 - 141.
  43. J. William Forgie (1972). Frege's Objection to the Ontological Argument. Noûs 6 (3):251-265.
    Frege argued that 1) in making existence assertions we ascribe (or deny) the second-Level property, 'not being empty', To a first-Level concept. He inferred from this that 2) existence is a second-Level property, The property 'not being empty'. He therefore rejected the ontological proof of the existence of God because, He claimed, It depends on the assumption that existence is a first-Level, And not a second-Level, Property. In this paper it is argued, First, That frege is unsuccessful in his attempt (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  44. Paul Franceschi, On the Impossibility of Successful Ontological Arguments.
    This paper presents a novel objection to ontological arguments. This objection aims at showing that ontological arguments in general, given the intrinsic nature of their conclusion, are of an impossible nature. The argument rests on the fact that conclusive ontological arguments would contradict the very nature of God.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Joel D. Friedman (1979). The Mystic'S Ontological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (January):73-78.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Joel I. Friedman (1980). Necessity and the Ontological Argument. Erkenntnis 15 (3):301-331.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. Stamatios Gerogiorgakis (2012). Does the Kind of Necessity Which Is Represented by S5 Capture Logically Defensible Notion of a Nece. In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Ontos Verlag. pp. 50--309.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. M. Gettings (1999). Godel's Ontological Argument: A Reply to Oppy. Analysis 59 (4):309-313.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Philip Goodchild (2005). Proslogion. In Bruce Ellis Benson & Norman Wirzba (eds.), The Phenomenology of Prayer. Fordham University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. George L. Goodwin (1983). The Ontological Argument in Neoclassical Context: Reply to Friedman. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 20 (2):219 - 232.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 284