Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:05:11.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A modified Meditation: exploring a grounding modal ontological argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2021

Stephen Kearns Open the ORCID record for Stephen Kearns [Opens in a new window]
Stephen Kearns*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Florida State University, 151 Dodd Hall, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
*
Corresponding author: Stephen Kearns, email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I present an argument for God's existence based on the idea that the possibility of God requires the existence of God as a ground. After setting this argument out, I compare it to other arguments for God, concentrating on an argument from Descartes's Third Meditation. I then address various objections and conclude by setting out a non-theistic version of the argument.

Keywords

ontological argumentDescartesmeditationsmodal ontological argumentgrounding
Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 801 - 813
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anselm, (1998) Proslogion. In Davies, B and Evans, GR (eds), Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 82–104.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D (1989) A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carriero, JP (2009) Between Two Worlds: A Reading of Descartes's Meditations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chignell, AC (2009) Kant, modality and the most real being. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91, 157–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D (2008) Descartes's argument from design. Journal of Philosophy 105, 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R (1984) The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 2 (Cottingham J, Stoothoff J and Murdoch D, trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 24–36.Google Scholar
Dilley, FB (1970) Descartes' cosmological argument. Monist 54, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dombrowski, DA (2006) Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorne, C (1962) The Logic of Perfection. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Kant, I (2002) The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God in Theoretical Philosophy 1755–1770 (Walford, D, ed. and trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111–201.Google Scholar
Kenny, A (1968) Descartes: A Study of his Philosophy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Malcolm, N (1960) Anselm's ontological arguments. Philosophical Review 69, 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, K (2013) Degrees of being. Philosopher's Imprint 13, 1–18.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Y (2017) Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G (1995) Ontological Arguments and Belief in God. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, A (1974) The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, WVO (1953) Reference and modality. In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 139–159.Google Scholar
Ross, J (1969) Philosophical Theology. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Stang, NF (2010) Kant's possibility proof. History of Philosophy Quarterly 27, 275–299.Google Scholar
Williamson, T (2018) Spaces of possibility. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 82, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, JM (2014) No work for a theory of grounding. Inquiry 57, 535–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, AN (1926) Science and the Modern World. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar