Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T10:15:10.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pruss's ontological arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2009

GRAHAM OPPY
GRAHAM OPPY
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy and Bioethics, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia e-mail: Graham.Oppy@arts.monash.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

First, I suggest that it is possible to make some further improvements upon the Gödelian ontological arguments that Pruss develops. Then, I argue that it is possible to parody Pruss's Gödelian ontological arguments in a way that shows that they make no contribution towards ‘lowering the probability of atheism and raising the probability of theism’. I conclude with some remarks about ways in which the arguments of this paper can be extended to apply to the whole family of Gödelian ontological arguments.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 355 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, A. (1990) ‘Some emendations on Gödel's ontological proof’, Faith and Philosophy 7, 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maydole, R. (2003) ‘The modal perfection argument for the existence of God’, Philo, 6, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. (1995) Ontological Arguments and Belief in God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Oppy, G. (1996) ‘Gödelian ontological arguments’, Analysis, 56, 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. (2000) ‘Response to Gettings’, Analysis, 60, 363–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. (2004) ‘Maydole's 2QS5 argument’, Philo, 7, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, G. (2007) ‘Maydole's modal perfection argument (again)’, Philo, 10, 4, 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruss, A. (2009) ‘A Gödelian ontological argument improved’, Religious Studies, 45, 347–353. All in-text references are to this work.CrossRefGoogle Scholar