Divine Independence and the Ontological Argument – A Reply to James M. Humber: ALAN G. NASSER

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


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



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,140

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

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.
Anselm's other argument.A. D. Smith - 2014 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.


Added to PP

7 (#1,044,144)

6 months
1 (#447,993)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references