Rowe why the ontological argument fails

If this were true, then it would not make sense to treat existence as a predicate, as we could only ascribe it to something if we assumed that the thing existed. Rowe contends that we do not treat predication in this way at all, and that the objection therefore loses its force.

Again, Rowe demonstrates that the reasoning behind this objection is flawed. He argues that although it does follow immediately from that definition that no non-existing thing that could have existed could be God, it does not follow that God actually exists.

After all, the concept cannot itself demonstrate that something instantiates that concept; it remains to be seen whether some actually existing thing does in fact have the properties that Anselm has in mind. The analysis cannot stop here, though, as Rowe notes. In light of this, it looks as if it really must be the case that God exists in reality.

Rowe points out, though, that we need not be so quick to grant to Anselm that God is a possible thing. This is because, given his understanding of God and his assertion that existence is a great-making feature, allowing that God is possible is just equivalent to allowing that God is an actually existing thing. And surely this is too much to ask. And yet, Jeff does not exist. So how can this be?

Rowe, professor emeritus of philosophy at Perdue University? Rowe, professor emeritus of philosophy at Perdue University. Rowe continues. I understand that this is a fairly confusing statement at face value, so allow me to unpack it a little:. A Tombilly is a four-legged, slimy, green creature that resembles a long-legged cat and exists in reality. I hope that cleared things up for you. Now, since it is part of the definition of a Tombilly that they exist in reality, it is logically necessary that they exist in reality, right?

BUT DR. You cry, unable to go a single blog post without showing up to contradict something. Rowe responds. Why do you like his arguments, but not mine? In effect, we have shown the opposite of what Anselm intended. Instead of proving that, because it is a Tombilly, it must exist, we have instead proven that, because it does not exist, it cannot be a Tombilly.

So, too, with God. A big thanks to Dr. William L. Rowe, professor emeritus of philosophy at Perdue University, for not actually appearing in this blog. For more, check out his books, his Wikipedia page, his journal articles, etc. If nothing else, I feel like he did a fantastic job at thoroughly dismantling the Ontological Argument, and if you have any questions, feel free to leave them in comments.

Philosophy: The Big Questions. Ruth J. Sample, Charles W. Mills, and James P. Malden, Blackwell Publishing: Thank you for the auspicious writeup.

It in truth was once a enjoyment account it. Glance complex to far introduced agreeable from you! However, how could we be in contact? Hello, I read your site occasionally, and I have a similar one, pus I was just questioning if yoou get a lots of spam remarks? If thedrefore how will you stop it, any kind of plugin or anything an individual can advise? I find so muych lately is actually driving me insane, therefore any assistance is surely much appreciated.

An outstanding share! And he actually bought me breakfast simply because I found it for him… lol. So let me reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! I am actually glad to glance at this webpage posts which carries lots of useful facts, thanks for providing these information.

You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Home About. Rowe March 16,