E. J. Lowe on the modal ontological argument
E. J. Lowe has defended a modal ontological argument that draws upon Plantinga's version. Briefly, the argument is this: God is a necessary being; possibly, God exists; hence, God exists. In this article, I accept the validity of Lowe's modal ontological argument and focus on how he seeks...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
[2020]
|
| In: |
Religious studies
Year: 2020, Volume: 56, Issue: 4, Pages: 611-622 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Plantinga, Alvin 1932-, The nature of necessity
/ Lowe, E. J. 1950-2014
/ Ontology
/ Modality
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism NBC Doctrine of God |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | E. J. Lowe has defended a modal ontological argument that draws upon Plantinga's version. Briefly, the argument is this: God is a necessary being; possibly, God exists; hence, God exists. In this article, I accept the validity of Lowe's modal ontological argument and focus on how he seeks to justify the argument's possibility claim in reference to his essence-based account of modal knowledge. I argue that here Lowe's defence fails. I have two complaints. I call them 'the modified "perfect island" objection' and "the conflicting possibilities objection". Both of these refer to the concern that Lowe's modal epistemology is too permissive: it permits justification of possibility claims that question the acceptability of the underlying modal epistemology. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-901X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412519000131 |