Updating Anselm Again

Res Philosophica 90 (1):23-32 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I set out four general facts about things that we can refer to and talk about, whether they exist or not. Then, I set out an argument for the existence of God. Myargument, like Anselm’s original argument, is a reductio ad absurdum: It shows that the assumption that God does not exist leads to a contradiction. Theargument is short and in ordinary language. Each line of the argument, other than the reductio premise, is justified by one of the general facts. Finally, I consider some traditional objections to Anselm’s argument, and show how my updated version avoids them.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,592

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-01

Downloads
171 (#112,559)

6 months
15 (#163,632)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Lynne Rudder Baker
PhD: Vanderbilt University; Last affiliation: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Citations of this work

Saint Anselm.Thomas Williams - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Reasons to Believe - Theoretical Arguments.Marcus Hunt - 2020 - In Beau Branson, Hans Van Eyghen, Marcus Hunt, Tim Knepper, Robert Sloan Lee & Steven Steyl (eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion. Rebus Community Press. pp. 22-33.
Against an Updated Ontological Argument.Eric Yang - 2017 - Res Philosophica 95 (1):179-187.
On the PROVER9 Ontological Argument.T. Parent - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (2):475-483.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Vacuous names and fictional entities.Saul A. Kripke - 2011 - HORIZON. Studies in Phenomenology 8 (2):676-706.
The ontological argument.Gareth B. Matthews - 2004 - In William Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 80–102.
Reply to Oppy's fool.G. B. Matthews & L. R. Baker - 2011 - Analysis 71 (2):303-303.
Anselm’s Argument Reconsidered.Gareth B. Matthews - 2010 - Review of Metaphysics 64 (1):31-54.

Add more references