Does the Ontological Argument Beg the Question?: P. J. MCGRATH

Religious Studies 30 (3):305-310 (1994)
Abstract
In his paper ‘Has the Ontological Argument Been Refuted?’, 97–110) William F. Vallicella argues that my attempt to show that the Ontological Argument begs the question is unsuccessful. 1 I believe he is wrong about this, but before endeavouring to vindicate my position I must first make clear what precisely is the point at issue between us. The Ontological Argument is not a single argument, but a family of arguments. Newly devised formulations of the argument are frequently put forward by philosophers in an effort to avoid difficulties that have been pointed out in previous versions. As a consequence there is no possibility of a conclusive proof that every form of the argument embodies the same fallacy. Nevertheless, one can, I believe, prove that all the standard versions of the argument embody a certain fallacy and that, given the nature of the argument, it is therefore unlikely that the argument can be formulated in such a way as to avoid this difficulty. What I tried to show in my paper is that the six best-known versions of the argument all beg the question and that they do so at the same point in the argument, namely when it is asserted that it is possible that an absolutely perfect being exists. It is difficult to see how an ontological argument could be formulated without including this claim as one of its premises, since the distinguishing badge of the argument is the inference from the possibility of an absolutely perfect being to its actuality. It must be unlikely then, if my criticism of these six versions is correct, that there is any way of formulating the argument that avoids this fallacy.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0034412500022915
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 32,628
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Does the Ontological Argument Beg the Question?P. J. McGrath - 1994 - Religious Studies 30 (3):305 - 310.
Does Anselm Beg the Question?Keith Burgess-Jackson - 2014 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76 (1):5-18.
Ontological Argument in Leibniz's Philosophy.Ali Tahiri - unknown - Kheradnameh Sadra Quarterly 39.
The Ontological Argument.Graham Oppy - 2008 - In Paul Copan & Chad V. Meister (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Blackwell.
The Ontological Argument and the Devil.Yujin Nagasawa - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):72-91.
Ontological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2014 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Makin on the Ontological Argument.Graham Oppy - 1991 - Philosophy 66 (255):106 - 114.
Added to PP index
2017-02-20

Total downloads
11 ( #460,584 of 2,236,104 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #48,709 of 2,236,104 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature