"The ontological argument provides as good grounds for the existence of God as does any serious philosophical argument for any important philosophical conclusion." - Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga once said the ontological argument stands on par with the greatest arguments in philosophy. By doing this he threw down a public dare. It’s a challenge to the smug habit of treating it as a punchline, a relic, or a toy for metaphysicians with too much time on

Common Objections to the Ontological Argument Covered In My Upcoming Book: I argue that none of the following arguments succeed in overturning the ratio Anselmi: Parody and Reductio Objections Gaunilo’s Island – If the argument worked, it could “prove” the existence of a

Twenty-seven years ago, I was an agnostic searching for answers. Picking up Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Dr. Peter Kreeft was a turning point that changed the entire course of my life. That book did not merely inform me, it convinced me. It led me to embrace Christianity

This started with my critique of Symmetry Lost: A Modal Ontological Argument for Atheism? by Fritz, Lo, and Schmid. There I said that the so-called “reverse” argument for atheism isn’t parallel. Why? Because it doesn’t start with the same God. In the classical tradition—Anselm,

Top 10 Ways to Hide a Contradiction with Philosophical Bullshit 1. It isn’t that a round square exists — it’s simply that the essence of round-squareness is instantiated. 2. One must distinguish between the empirical absence of round squares and the ontological presence of

Logical Positivism never would have survived in a scholastic environment. Why? Because the very first objection from a Thomist would have been: “But your verification principle, can it itself be verified?” And the whole house of cards would collapse before it got out of the gate.

Few philosophers have had a greater impact on me than Mortimer Adler. His Aristotle for Everybody was the very first philosophy book I ever read, and it opened the door to a lifelong love of wisdom. Adler was a man of extraordinary intellect, but what made him stand apart was

My current reading lineup.

“There would be no pagans if Christians were real Christians.” - St. John Chrysostom

Contemporary analytic philosophers of religion who endorse the ontological argument lack the metaphysical framework necessary to answer Gaunilo-style parody objections in a convincing way (“intrinsic maxima be damned”). Such objections can only be adequately addressed within a

If I dissent from St. Thomas, my Thomist friends accuse me of eclecticism. If I assent to him, others dismiss me as unoriginal. Very well, let us leave both charges aside and aim only at truth.

Traditional Catholic homilies, sermons, and programs stand worlds above the shallow offerings of modern-minded Catholics. An eighteen-year-old looking traditional priest can enter the pulpit and speak with a wisdom far beyond his years. The reason is formation. Traditional

"The necessary is that, the assumption of whose non-existence would necessitate an absurdity. The impossible is that, the assumption of whose existence would necessitate an absurdity. The possible is that, the assumption either of whose existence or of whose non-existence would

It seems to me that celebrating the claim that “existence adds nothing to the concept”—implicitly accepts the scholastic existence-essence distinction, which undergirds the metaphysical framework of ontological arguments.

From the Summa Scottologica: Whether the Modal Ontological Argument Requires S5 Objection 1. It seems that the modal ontological argument requires S5. For the reasoning “if possibly necessary, then necessary” is a principle contained in that system, without which the argument

"In my whole life, I have known no wise people (over a broad subject matter area) who didn't read all the time -- none, zero." ~Charlie Munger