Religious Studies 4 (1):133-146 (1968)

Anselm presented his ontological argument in three main forms. In Proslogion II he argued that the very concept of God implies his actual existence. In Reply to Gaunilo —the argument from aseity—he argued that the conception of God as an eternal existent rules out his conception as a merely possible existent. In Proslogion III he argued that the concept of God implies his actual existence as logically necessary. Each of these arguments has its traditional refutation. Against Proslogion II it is argued that the analytic use of ‘exists’ conceptually and descriptively is logically distinct from its synthetic use as an empirical judgement. Against the argument from aseity the same point is made about ‘exists eternally’, and against the detail of his argument it is said that the second premise is not a proposition with a single implication, but a disjunction. Against Proslogion III it is argued that ‘logically necessary existence’ is a meaningless notion. This paper is designed to show that Anselm's arguments may be refuted without recourse to these traditional criticisms; that each of his arguments contains at least one further error, of equal if not more importance, which has passed unnoticed. If this appears to be bringing yet further coals to Newcastle, the revival of the argument by Hartshorne and Malcolm, and the supposed ‘ontological disproof’ by Findlay, may indicate our need of further fuel.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0034412500003437
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,599
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

The Modal Unity of Anselm’s Proslogion.Gary Mar - 1996 - Faith and Philosophy 13 (1):50-67.
Anselm's Neglected Argument.Brian Leftow - 2002 - Philosophy 77 (3):331-347.
The Ontological Argument.Stephen Makin - 1988 - Philosophy 63 (243):83 - 91.
What Does the Second Form of the Ontological Argument Prove?H. Jong Kim - 2004 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 56 (1):17 - 40.
The Non-Christian Influence on Anselm’s Proslogion Argument.Nancy Kendrick - 2011 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (2):73-89.
Anselm and the Ontological Argument.Graham Oppy - 2011 - In Jeff Jordan (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: The Key Thinkers. London: Continuum. pp. 22-43.
Reality and Existence in Anselm.Stephen Priest - 2000 - Heythrop Journal 41 (4):461-462.
Reality and Existence in Anselm.Stephen Priest - 2000 - Heythrop Journal 41 (4):461–462.


Added to PP index

Total views
30 ( #369,951 of 2,462,160 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,335 of 2,462,160 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes