Causal Necessity and the Ontological Argument

The ontological argument appears in a multiplicity of forms. Over the past ten or twelve years, however, the philosophical community seems to have been concerned principally with those versions of the proof which claim that God is a necessary being. In contemporary literature, Professors Malcolm and...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Humber, James M. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Cambridge Univ. Press [1974]
In: Religious studies
Year: 1974, Volume: 10, Issue: 3, Pages: 291-300
Online Access: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Volltext (doi)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1686718306
003 DE-627
005 20240409143350.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 200108s1974 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1017/S0034412500007654  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1686718306 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1686718306 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 0  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)1202544851  |0 (DE-627)1686891237  |4 aut  |a Humber, James M. 
109 |a Humber, James M.  |a Humber, James 
245 1 0 |a Causal Necessity and the Ontological Argument  |c James M. Humber 
264 1 |c [1974] 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The ontological argument appears in a multiplicity of forms. Over the past ten or twelve years, however, the philosophical community seems to have been concerned principally with those versions of the proof which claim that God is a necessary being. In contemporary literature, Professors Malcolm and Hartshorne have been the chief advocates of this view, both men holding that God must be conceived as a necessary being and that, as a result, his existence is able to be demonstrated a priori. This claim has not gone unchallenged; indeed, numerous writers have argued that neither Malcolm nor Hartshorne has exercised due care in his use of ‘necessary'. That is, critics charge that the arguments of both men have only the appearance of validity, for in their reasonings the defenders of the a priori proof have tacitly assumed that God is a logically necessary being. Whether or not a being can be logically necessary, however, is a quaestio disputata. In fact, until recently the question was not in dispute at all—virtually all ‘competent judges' agreed that only propositions could be spoken of as logically necessary, and thus that God must be defined as a physically or factually necessary being. But is the statement, ‘a physically necessary being exists', logically true? Critics of the ontological argument think not; and in support of this view they offer analyses of ‘physical necessity' which, they feel, not only give meaning to the phrase, but also show that a physically necessary being's existence can be proven only by some kind of a posteriori investigation. 
601 |a Ontologie 
601 |a Argumentation 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Religious studies  |d Cambridge [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965  |g 10(1974), 3, Seite 291-300  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)265785405  |w (DE-600)1466479-3  |w (DE-576)079718671  |x 1469-901X  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:10  |g year:1974  |g number:3  |g pages:291-300 
856 4 0 |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/causal-necessity-and-the-ontological-argument/FBCDBB68D9BB15C4300221AB822EA968  |x Resolving-System 
856 |u https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412500007654  |x doi  |3 Volltext 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3573423256 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1686718306 
LOK |0 005 20200108160823 
LOK |0 008 200108||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo  |a rwrk 
ORI |a TA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL