Papers will be marked on the basis of a) how comprehensively and completely the paper addresses all aspects of the prompt; b) philosophical depth and originality; c) clarity and conciseness; d) correctness (i.e., whether the philosophical positions discussed in the paper are accurately represented); and e) style, spelling and grammar.

Topic:
On Plantinga’s view, Anselm’s version of the ontological argument (appropriately updated in contemporary modal terminology) ultimately fails. However, he argues that a different, but related argument succeeds. Explain why he takes Anselm’s argument to fail. Do you agree that it fails? Why or why not? Then explain Plantinga’s replacement argument. Do you agree that this argument succeeds? Why or why not? Defend your answers.

Reference:
Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom and Evil. William B. Eerdmans, 2002.

Please use similar style with document “435022”