Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The strongest version of Anselm's ontological argument is... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Hume's and Kant's criticisms of the ontological argument do not target the strongest version of Anselm's argument found in Proslogion chapter 3.

    The strongest version of Anselm's ontological argument is found in Proslogion chapter 3.

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Hume's and Kant's criticisms are not directed at this modal version of the argum...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Natural Theology
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Hume's and Kant's criticisms of the ontological argument do not target the stron...
    Proslogion chapter 3 implies a modal distinction between existing necessarily an...

    Similar

    Hume's and Kant's criticisms of the ontological argument do not target...90%Premise (3) of the ontological argument is subject to a decisive chall...80%No example is provided of a 'Hegelian' ontological argument.80%There is no clearly articulated full set of premises for a 'Hegelian' ...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: hartshorne
    View source passageHide passage
    He argues that Hume’s and Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument of St. Anselm are not directed at the strongest version of his argument found in Proslogion, chapter 3. Here, he thinks, there is a modal distinction implied between existing necessarily and existing contingently. Hartshorne’s view is that existence alone might not be a real predicate, but existing necessarily certainly is. To say that something exists without the possibility of not existing is to say something significant a

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective