國立虎尾科技大學 |

Rethinking the ontological argument : = a neoclassical theistic response /

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Rethinking the ontological argument :/ Daniel A. Dombrowski.
Reminder of title:	a neoclassical theistic response /
Author:	Dombrowski, Daniel A.,
Description:	1 online resource (vii, 172 pages) :digital, PDF file(s). :
Notes:	Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015).
Subject:	Theism. -
Online resource:	https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498916
ISBN:	9780511498916 (ebook)

Rethinking the ontological argument : = a neoclassical theistic response /
Dombrowski, Daniel A.,

Rethinking the ontological argument :a neoclassical theistic response /Daniel A. Dombrowski. - 1 online resource (vii, 172 pages) :digital, PDF file(s).

Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015).

Historical background -- Poetry versus the ontological argument: Richard Rorty's challenge -- Deconstructionism and the ontological argument: the case of Mark Taylor -- Is the ontological argument worthless? Graham Oppy's rejection -- Oppy, perfect islands, and existence as a predicate -- Rival concepts of God and the ontological argument: Thomas Morris, Katherin Rogers, and Alvin Plantinga.

In recent years, the ontological argument and theistic metaphysics have been criticised by philosophers working in both the analytic and continental traditions. Responses to these criticisms have primarily come from philosophers who make use of the traditional, and problematic, concept of God. In this 2006 volume, Daniel A. Dombrowski defends the ontological argument against its contemporary critics, but he does so by using a neoclassical or process concept of God, thereby strengthening the case for a contemporary theistic metaphysics. Relying on the thought of Charles Hartshorne, he builds on Hartshorne's crucial distinction between divine existence and divine actuality, which enables neoclassical defenders of the ontological argument to avoid the familiar criticism that the argument moves illegitimately from an abstract concept to concrete reality. His argument, thus, avoids the problems inherent in the traditional concept of God as static.

ISBN: 9780511498916 (ebook)Subjects--Topical Terms:

580394
Theism.

LC Class. No.: BD555 / .D67 2006

Dewey Class. No.: 212/.1

Rethinking the ontological argument : = a neoclassical theistic response /
LDR:02389nam a22003018i 4500 001 1123804
003 UkCbUP
005 20151005020623.0
006 m|||||o||d||||||||
007 cr||||||||||||
008 240926s2006||||enk o ||1 0|eng|d
020 $a 9780511498916 (ebook)
020 $z 9780521863698 (hardback)
020 $z 9780521326353 (paperback)
035 $a CR9780511498916
040 $a UkCbUP $b eng $e rda $c UkCbUP
050 0 0 $a BD555 $b .D67 2006
082 0 0 $a 212/.1 $2 22
100 1 $a Dombrowski, Daniel A., $e author. $3 1440967
245 1 0 $a Rethinking the ontological argument : $b a neoclassical theistic response / $c Daniel A. Dombrowski.
264 1 $a Cambridge : $b Cambridge University Press, $c 2006.
300 $a 1 online resource (vii, 172 pages) : $b digital, PDF file(s).
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 05 Oct 2015).
505 0 $a Historical background -- Poetry versus the ontological argument: Richard Rorty's challenge -- Deconstructionism and the ontological argument: the case of Mark Taylor -- Is the ontological argument worthless? Graham Oppy's rejection -- Oppy, perfect islands, and existence as a predicate -- Rival concepts of God and the ontological argument: Thomas Morris, Katherin Rogers, and Alvin Plantinga.
520 $a In recent years, the ontological argument and theistic metaphysics have been criticised by philosophers working in both the analytic and continental traditions. Responses to these criticisms have primarily come from philosophers who make use of the traditional, and problematic, concept of God. In this 2006 volume, Daniel A. Dombrowski defends the ontological argument against its contemporary critics, but he does so by using a neoclassical or process concept of God, thereby strengthening the case for a contemporary theistic metaphysics. Relying on the thought of Charles Hartshorne, he builds on Hartshorne's crucial distinction between divine existence and divine actuality, which enables neoclassical defenders of the ontological argument to avoid the familiar criticism that the argument moves illegitimately from an abstract concept to concrete reality. His argument, thus, avoids the problems inherent in the traditional concept of God as static.
650 0 $a Theism. $3 580394
650 0 $a Process theology. $3 803487
650 0 $a God $x Proof, Ontological. $3 559793
776 0 8 $i Print version: $z 9780521863698
856 4 0 $u https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498916