Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):72-91 (2010)
AbstractThe 'parody objection' to the ontological argument for the existence of God advances parallel arguments apparently proving the existence of various absurd entities. I discuss recent versions of the parody objection concerning the existence of 'AntiGod' and the devil, as introduced by Peter Millican and Timothy Chambers. I argue that the parody objection always fails, because any parody is either (i) not structurally parallel to the ontological argument, or (ii) not dialectically parallel to the ontological argument. Moreover, once a parody argument is modified in such a way that it avoids (i) and (ii), it is, ironically, no longer a parody – it is the ontological argument itself.
Similar books and articles
The Design Argument.Elliott Sober - 2004 - In William Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell.
The Relevance of Kant's Objection to Anselm's Ontological Argument.Chris Heathwood - 2011 - Religious Studies 47 (3):345-357.
The Ontological Meta-Argument.Elijah Millgram - 2004 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 4 (3):331-334.
On Behalf of the Devil: A Parody of Anselm Revisited.Timothy Chambers - 2000 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (1):93–113.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Is There a Shallow Logical Refutation of the Ontological Argument?Yujin Nagasawa - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (2):87--99.
References found in this work
No references found.