After so many centuries of debate, much of it even quite recent, as to the credibility of Anselm’s and others’ ontological arguments for the existence of God, it seems only fair to the opposition that some such argument be proposed for Satan’s existence. It must be noted, however, that in advocating the Devil’s existence, we may be no more than playing the Devil’s advocate.

In a previous note to this journal a hope was expressed that some further footnotes to the theory of essential predication regarding the ontological argument would follow. This paper purports to fulfill that hope in part.

How are we to know that which knows? How are we to know the knower?

This paper is a continuation of a long line of footnotes to discussions of the ontological argument which began with Ayer, Wisdom, and Broad, and then progressed through Nakhnikian, Salmon, and Kiteley. In this series, one of the major theses proposed by the first trio and queried by the second is that, if existence is indeed a predicate, then all positive existential statements become analytic and all negative existentials self-contradictory. I should like to question this claim from yet another perspective (...) than that of the more recent writers, viz., that of essential predication. Since it is the so-called second version of the proof which is allegedly more cogent, such a perspective is after all much closer to the core of the ontological argument. Though the remarks here are presented only with regard to positive existentials, they are nevertheless applicable to negative existentials, mutatis mutandis, as well. (shrink)

By turning the classical arguments for God's existence on their head, David and Marjorie Haight present original arguments for the existence of the devil in order to reveal a cosmic 'God beyond Goddiness' or the God beyond good and evil, which reconciles Divinity with its Shadow.