tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post121749471659119971..comments2024-01-22T11:42:42.772+08:00Comments on FideCogitActio : omnis per gratiam: The Scotist-Anselmian argument for God?Codgitator (Cadgertator)http://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post-48188076134816471632010-08-24T03:36:41.536+08:002010-08-24T03:36:41.536+08:00Good stuff, Codgitator. :)
As Plantinga has noted...Good stuff, Codgitator. :)<br /><br />As Plantinga has noted, the ontological argument is immune to Kant's objection once we distinguish necessary existence and contingent existence. The claim needn't be that existence is greater than non-existence (although something can be said for that as well), but that necessary existence is greater than contingent existence. If "God" is possible but not necessary, that would imply that God is contingent. So, God is not really God according to this conclusion, which is contradictory.<br /><br />With that said, I think your connection between the ontological argument and Scotus is made very well.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.com