Switch to: References

Citations of:

Ontological Arguments II: Cartesian and Leibnizian

In Hans Burkhardt & Barry Smith (eds.), Handbook of metaphysics and ontology. Munich: Philosophia Verlag. pp. 2--625 (1991)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The correctness and relevance of the modal ontological argument.Andrzej Biłat - 2020 - Synthese 199 (1):2727-2743.
    This paper deals with some metaphilosophical aspects of the modal ontological argument originating from Charles Hartshorne. One of the specific premises of the argument expresses the idea that the existence of God is not contingent. Several well-known versions of the argument have been formulated that appeal to different ways of clarifying the latter. A question arises: which of the formally correct and relevant versions is proper or basic? The paper points to some criteria of formal correctness, and distinguishes two types (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Contingent modal semantics for some variants of Anderson-like ontological proofs.Miroslaw Szatkowski - 2007 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17 (1):91-114.
    In the paper we introduce a wide range of Anderson-like variants of Gödel's theory and prove for each of them strong completeness theorem wrt. corresponding class of modal structures.These theories — all formulated in the 2nd order modal language with a 2nd order unary predicate of positiveness — differ among themselves with respect of: properties of the necessity operator and of the predicate of positiveness, axioms characterizing identity between 1st sort terms, definitions of identity between 2nd sort terms, the treatment (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • W kwestii dowodów Spinozy na istnienie Boga i dowodu na jedyność Spinozjańskiej substancji.Tomasz Kąkol - 2012 - Filo-Sofija 12 (17):83-100.
    ON SPINOZA’S PROOFS OF (SPINOZIAN) GOD’S EXISTENCE AND THE PROOF OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THE SPINOZIAN SUBSTANCE In this paper I analyze Spinozian ontological arguments for God’s existence from Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata. I argue that the first proof suffers from circulus vitiosus, whereas the others have at least one non-obvious premise. I also consider P. Gut’s modification of the first proof, reported to me during the conference “The Philosophy of the 17th Century—Its Origins and Continuations” (Gdańsk, 16.06.2011). Meanwhile, I (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark