Modal to traditional ontological arguments

Abstract

I look at the literature surrounding the ontological argument and I ask the question why the new works in the literature move away from the traditional arguments to move to modal variants. My task here is to examine why this is happening and give an argument that I deem to be successful in proving god’s existence. I consider reasons why people reject the traditional ontological argument and hope to resolve them.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Conceivability and Possibility.Joshua Spencer - 2018 - In Graham Oppy (ed.), The Ontological Argument (Cambridge Classic Philosophical Arguments Series). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 214-237.
The ontological argument.Graham Oppy - 2007 - In Paul Copan & Chad Meister (eds.), Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Maydole on Ontological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2012 - In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Ontos Verlag. pp. 445.
Maydole’s 2QS5 Argument.Graham Oppy - 2004 - Philo 7 (2):203-211.
Response to Maydole.Graham Oppy - 2012 - In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Ontos Verlag. pp. 445-68.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-11-07

Downloads
7 (#1,640,750)

6 months
2 (#1,689,094)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references