Philo 8 (2):134-136 (2005)
AbstractThis paper is a reply to Thomas Metcalf ’s “Entailment and ontological arguments: Reply to Maydole,” published in Philo 8, 2. Iargue that he fails to refute my Modal Perfection Argument for the existence of a Supreme Being, and that it remains arguably sound in the face of his alleged counterexamples and parody.
Similar books and articles
On Oppy’s Objections to the Modal Perfection Argument.Robert Maydole - 2005 - Philo 8 (2):123-130.
Entailment and Ontological Arguments: Reply to Maydole.Thomas Metcalf - 2005 - Philo 8 (2):131-133.
The Modal Perfection Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being.Robert Maydole - 2003 - Philo 6 (2):299-313.
Maydole on Ontological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2012 - In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Ontos Verlag. pp. 445.
Response to Maydole.Graham Oppy - 2012 - In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Bydgoszcz: Ontos Verlag. pp. 445-68.
The Necessity of Perfection: Modal Versions of the Ontological Argument.John Thomas Birmingham - 2001 - Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara
A Logical Choice: The Role of Modal Logics in the Modal Ontological Argument.Tracy Lupher - 2012 - Southwest Philosophy Review 28 (1):237-246.
Pruss, Motivational Centrality, and Probabilities Attached to Possibility Premises in Modal Ontological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (2):65-85.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads