Religious Studies 4 (1):103-122 (1968)

Abstract
Although the basic ideas of the ontological argument can be found in Aristotle and Philo Judaeus, the argument received its classical formulation in Anselm's Proslogion and his Reply to the objections raised by Gaunilo. During the succeeding nine centuries the argument has had a chequered career. It was supported by some scholastic theologians but rejected by Aquinas. Descartes and Leibniz offered their own versions of the proof but Kant's refutation of the argument has generally been accepted as conclusive during the past century and a half. Nevertheless, interest in the proof has never completely disappeared—perhaps provoked by Aquinas' suggestion that the proof may be valid for God even though it cannot be valid for us because of the inadequacy of our knowledge of God. Recently there has been a revival of interest in the ontological argument. J. N. Findlay put the argument into reverse to show the necessary non-existence of God in an article in 1948 but in later writings he has suggested that the argument may have positive significance. In 1960 Norman Malcolm published a paper in which he distinguished two basically different forms of the ontological argument in the Proslogion and defended the possible validity of the second of them.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0034412500003413
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: 70,307
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

What Does the Second Form of the Ontological Argument Prove?H. Jong Kim - 2004 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 56 (1):17 - 40.
Response to Gettings.G. Oppy - 2000 - Analysis 60 (4):363-367.
Ontological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2014 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Ontological Argument.Stephen Makin - 1988 - Philosophy 63 (243):83 - 91.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument and Aristotle’s Elegktikōs Apodeixai.Michael Oliver Wiitala - 2012 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 86:129-140.
Ontological Argument in Leibniz's Philosophy.Ali Tahiri - unknown - Kheradnameh Sadra Quarterly 39.
Godelian Ontological Arguments.G. Oppy - 1996 - Analysis 56 (4):226-230.
The Ontological Argument.Graham Oppy - 2008 - In Paul Copan & Chad V. Meister (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Oxford UK: Blackwell.
Anselm and the Ontological Argument.Graham Oppy - 2011 - In Jeff Jordan (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: The Key Thinkers. London: Continuum. pp. 22-43.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-05-29

Total views
9 ( #951,195 of 2,507,717 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,820 of 2,507,717 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes