Maydole’s 2QS5 Argument

Philo 7 (2):203-211 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper is a reply to Robert Maydole’s “The Modal Perfection Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being,” published in Philo 6, 2, 2003. I argue that Maydole’s Modal Perfection Argument fails, and that there is no evident way in which it can be repaired.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Maydole on Ontological Arguments.Graham Oppy - 2012 - In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Ontos Verlag. pp. 445.
Response to Maydole.Graham Oppy - 2012 - In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Ontos Verlag. pp. 445-68.
Response to MaydoIe.Graham Oppy - 2012 - In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Ontos Verlag. pp. 50--487.
The Ontological Argument.Robert E. Maydole - 2009 - In William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 553–592.
The Ontological Argument.Robert Merrihew Adams - 1994 - In Robert Merrihew Adams (ed.), Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. New York, US: Oxford University Press USA.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-02-24

Downloads
718 (#35,352)

6 months
92 (#67,571)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Graham Oppy
Monash University

Citations of this work

Pruss's ontological arguments.Graham Oppy - 2009 - Religious Studies 45 (3):355-363.
Existence as a Perfection.Michael Wreen - 2017 - History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis 20 (1):161-172.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Response to Gettings.G. Oppy - 2000 - Analysis 60 (4):363-367.

Add more references