Religious Studies 15 (3):391-397 (1979)

Abstract
In a detailed and spirited critique, Professor James M. Humber has found my defence of the ontological argument unconvincing. Humber's case rests upon his claim that my ‘error’ is due to my ‘having accepted an incorrect definition of “physically necessary being” … ’. Now I do indeed claim that God must be conceived as a factuall necessary being, i.e. as eternally independent. I take the notion of God's aseity or eternal independence to be relatively straightforward and uncontroversial; it is accepted as an essential component of the concept God by many philosophers who also insist that there is no acceptable form of demonstrative theism. Thus, it is widely held that ‘God is a factually necessary being’ does not imply ‘God is a logically necessary being’; that God is eternally independent does not imply that he exists in all possible worlds. But it is precisely this view that I have argued is incorrect. While I concur that there is an intelligible concept of God as factually necessary, I deny that the existence of such a being is logically contingent, a mere matter of empirical fact. Indeed, a rigorous inspection of the concept of an eternally independent being reveals that whether that concept is instantiated, i.e. whether there exists a being exemplifying that concept, is knowable a priori . My claim is in fact stronger than this. I argue that the existence of an eternal, independent, omniscient and omnipotent being is demonstrable by conceptual analysis. It is Humber's contention that my alleged demonstration of God's existence crumbles upon the discovery of the unacceptability of my definition of ‘factually necessary being’. Let us see
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0034412500011525
Options
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: 65,581
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

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Factual and Logical Necessity and the Ontological Argument.Alan G. Nasser - 1971 - International Philosophical Quarterly 11 (3):385-402.
Kant's Argument That Existence is Not a Determination.Nicholas F. Stang - 2015 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 91 (1):583-626.
What Does the Second Form of the Ontological Argument Prove?H. Jong Kim - 2004 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 56 (1):17 - 40.
Causal Necessity and the Ontological Argument.James M. Humber - 1974 - Religious Studies 10 (3):291 - 300.
Defending Musical Platonism.Julian Dodd - 2002 - British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (4):380-402.
Aristotle on Ontological Dependence.Phil Corkum - 2008 - Phronesis 53 (1):65 - 92.
The Ontological Argument and the Concept of Substance.J. Michael Young - 1974 - American Philosophical Quarterly 11 (3):181 - 191.
Does Anselm Beg the Question?Keith Burgess-Jackson - 2014 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76 (1):5-18.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-02-05

Total views
6 ( #1,113,149 of 2,461,437 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #448,382 of 2,461,437 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes