The Ontological Argument: From St. Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers

by Alvin Plantinga (Editor), Richard Taylor (Introduction)

Clean, bright used copy with tight binding. Small smudge on right cover corner./lh

Genres: Philosophy, Theology

180 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1965

About the author

He is an American analytic philosopher, the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame and the inaugural holder of the Jellema Chair in Philosophy at Calvin College.

Plantinga is widely known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics and Christian apologetics.

He has delivered the Gifford Lectures three times and was described by TIME magazine as "America's leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God"

Plantinga is the current winner of the Templeton Prize.

Reviews

[Manny]

[Rescued from my writing section]

I Fucked The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God

In the comment thread to karen's review of Taming the Teddy Bear, I wondered how far one could go with bizarre erotic novels, and suggested an idea. I have been told by people whose good opinions I value that it would be neither funny nor sexy to write the piece I had in mind, and they are very likely right. But in case someone else is not fortunate enough to have access to tasteful guidance in such matters, let me outline my plan in a little more detail.

First, some background. As any fule kno, the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God, originally due to the medieval scholastic philosopher Anselm, starts from the position that God is by definition the most perfect being. Now, consider all the different possible perfect beings. If one of them had all the imaginable perfections, except that of existing, then a being which had all those perfections and also existed would be even more perfect. Hence God exists.

The story which I will not write begins with an attractive female student of theology sitting alone in her room, musing on the essay about the Ontological Argument that she is trying to compose. It occurs to her to apply the argument to itself. As she has just discovered on Google, there are many different versions of the argument; some are good, some are less good. But what is the perfect version of the Ontological Argument?

Well, thinks our heroine, evidently the perfect version of the argument must exist. That much is obvious. What other perfections might it have? One such perfection could well be that of being fuckable. (I should stress that not all theologians agree fuckability is a perfection, but please suspend disbelief if you will). If we grant that the argument indeed exists and is fuckable, then its postulated perfection means that fucking it should be a very pleasurable experience indeed.

I apologise, but I will not continue my outline any further. If anyone cares to complete the story, you may want to post a link below, so that I can ascertain just how unnecessarily tasteless it is.

[Shinichuji · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book and its theme, there is a profound problem which is the philosophical relation between linguistic-concept and ontological-existence. It is not just theological one whether God exists or not, that is rather more broader and deeper. But I can not yet fully articulate it.

[Ciro Argüello · Rating 1 out of 5]

Horrible uso de la lógica formal para intentar justificar la existencia de Dios. Deja a los cristianos completamente en el ridículo y alguien con cualquier tipo de base lógica puede sacar 20 incongruencias en 10 min.

[Ashley Roberts · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good book and like plantingas writing. 3 stars knocked off for this argument being the most frustrating thing ever created

[Zachary Lawson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just what it says on the tin: A serviceable collection of seminal papers on the ontological argument from Anselm to Malcolm. Nothing fancy.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fine introduction to one of the most frustrating arguments in the history of the philosophy of religion. The argument is (essentially) that the concept of a supreme being must include that being's existence, and since the supreme being is defined as the greatest conceivable, and a being that exists is clearly greater than one that does not, then a supreme being must exist.

If it sounds like a bad argument, be not afraid. Almost no one accepts it as convincing except Alvin Plantinga himself, who has worked up an alternate version. The modern version typically takes the form of an argument that if a supreme being is possible, then it exists by necessity.

Although most recognize that the ontological argument can't be good, it isn't easy to put one's finger on why. The most common response to the argument is to note that existence is not a predicate, i.e., it is not a quality that some things have (such as horses) and others lack (such as unicorns). You can compare qualities between two objects but not between those that exist and those whose existence is in question. Thus, $1 million dollars is worth more than ten dollars, but are a million imaginary dollars worth more than ten real dollars? Do they have any value at all? It seems they don't.

It's an interesting problem in the history of philosophy, and Plantinga's collection is a good one, from the work of St. Anselm to the editor's own.

[Timothy Crockett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Each year I try and read something beyond my scope of understanding. This is one of those times. I can see the place of this argument in apologetics but not certainly something I would use anytime soon. The best way for me to describe it is word salad. Very difficult to track the arguments for and against it.

The one takeaway was the quote by Anselm - I don't seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand. For this also I believe that unless I believe I will not understand."

I've watched several videos explaining the Ontological Argument to try and get a handle on it. I've a few more to watch and then I will move on.

[Sergio Flores · Rating 5 out of 5]

Its all about the ontological argument (go figure) but it is very informative, i like books like this that have a rebuttal counter-rebuttal. This book will give you a better understanding of the ontological argument.

[Ege · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summary of Anselm-Gaunilo Debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUcQJ...

[Kendal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of the debate, but he missed Aquinas's 5 ontological arguments in Summa Contra Gentiles, and his 2 other ontological arguments in Summa Theologae.

[Jason Mccool · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty deep stuff. I have to say, I think several of the objections presented against the ontological argument basically miss the mark. What was particularly intetesting was seeing Alvin Plantinga's rebuttal of the argument he would later come to support, although only after tweaking it (which I think has really transormed it and is the most convincing form of it that I've ever read). But overall, the book is a good, short survey of the ebb and flow of this line of reasoning over the last millennium.