Modal ontological arguments are often claimed to be immune to the flqqperfect islandfrqq objection of Gaunilo, because necessary existence does not apply to material, contingent things. But Gaunilo’s strategy can be reformulated: we can speak of non-contingent beings, like quasi-Gods or evil God. The paper is intended to show that we can construct ontological arguments for the existence of such beings, and that those arguments are equally plausible as theistic modal argument. This result does not show that this argument is (...) fallacious, but it shows that it is dialectically ineffective as an argument for theism. (shrink)

U ovom radu analizirat će se tri najistaknutije formulacije ontološkog argumenta, uključujući klasični argument prema kojemu je postojanje jedno od savršenstava, modalna verzija argumenta Normana Malcoma prema kojemu savršenstvo nije postojanje, već nužno postojanje, te modalna verzija argumenta koju nudi Alvin Plantinga koja se poziva na semantiku mogućih svjetova. Prema Kantovom prigovoru, ontološki argument pretpostavlja da je postojanje predikat koji dodaje još jedno savršenstvo pojmu Boga i time implicira problem referencije između stvarnog predmeta i njegovog pojma ili tautološki povlači da (...) Bog stvarno postoji. Unatoč svom utjecaju, Kantov prigovor argumentu kritiziran je zbog njegove dvosmislene upotrebe pojma postojanja, kao i zbog nerelevantnosti za ontološki argument i modalni ontološki argument kojeg nudi Plantinga. U ovom radu prvo želim pokazati da, nasuprot Plantinginoj tvrdnji, Kantov prigovor nije relevantan samo za klasičnu verziju argumenta, već i za njegove modalne formulacije. U tom smislu, tvrdim da nije dvosmislena Kantova uporaba pojma postojanja, već da su klasične i modalne verzije ontološkog argumenta one koje svoju prividnu snagu dobivaju dvosmislenom uporabom pojma postojanja. Druga svrha rada je dati alternativnu analizu pojma postojanja koja se temelji na Aviceninoj metafizici i time ukazati na alternativni temelj za potencijalnu preformulaciju ontološkog argumenta, čime bi se izbjegao Kantov prigovor. (shrink)

Según una historia estándar, devenida habitual especialmente por influencia del pensamiento heideggeriano, la filosofía occidental se encuentra atrapada en la trampa de la metafísica. La trampa de la metafísica centra la crítica a la metafísica en torno a la tesis según la cual el esencialismo y una concepción de la verdad condicionada por él determinan qué significa “ser” o “existencia”. Detrás de la realidad se supone un fundamento que bajo la forma de un “trasmundo” (Hinterwelt) produce una manifestación cuasi-causal, a (...) saber: el “mundo” (Welt), el cual se deja con ello concebir como la aparición del ser que se ha retraído en sí mismo. La diferencia entre ser y apariencia mantiene al pensamiento metafísico atrapado, en la medida en que éste no es capaz de reconocer esa diferencia misma como una apariencia. En Siete ensayos sobre la muerte de la metafísica, Héctor Ferreiro ofrece frente a esta historia estándar una convincente contrahistoria. Esta contrahistoria tiene su punto de partida en Hegel, quien intenta, de modo opuesto a la lectura propuesta por Heidegger, superar a la metafísica con sus propios medios y sepultarla a partir de su propia dinámica interna. Precisamente a esta superación está dedicado el debate y discusión de Hegel con el argumento ontológico. Como Kant, Hegel ve en el argumento ontológico uno de los centros operacionales de la metafísica clásica. La cuestión es, pues, cómo abordar el argumento ontológico del modo correcto desde un punto de vista crítico a la metafísica. La estrategia que ofrece Hegel consiste, como lo expone Ferreiro, en desenmascarar la distinción misma entre el ser y la apariencia producida por él como una operación de tipo conceptual. Según Hegel, la metafísica ha sido desde siempre el intento por desarrollar una teoría de la totalidad. Pero una teoría de la totalidad que coloca al ser de un lado y a su aparición del otro lado de un límite no advierte su propia operación, dado que el trazado de un límite pertenece él mismo a la teoría de la totalidad. De lo que se trata, pues, es de examinar los trazados de límite constitutivos de la metafísica para reconocerlos como productos de la reflexión y no como hechos dados que el pensamiento tan sólo debe reflejar. El movimiento de autosuperación de la metafísica que culmina en la discusión de Kant y Hegel con el argumento ontológico pertenece ya, sin embargo, a la tradición de la metafísica. Como lo muestra Ferreiro, la metafísica está a más tardar a partir de la distinción medieval entre esencia y existencia en proceso de superarse a sí misma, pues ya Tomás de Aquino logra reconocer en dicha distinción la verdadera fuente de la producción del mundo. Tomás persiste aún, sin embargo, en una concepción sustancialista, en la medida en que considera a la distinción entre esencia y existencia como un hecho in-dependiente de la teoría y del sujeto. Sin embargo, esa distinción es una operación conceptual y no un objeto que se encuentra en el mundo. En esta medida, la tesis de la distinción de razón entre ambas categorías se presenta como un indicador de la reflexión de la metafísica sobre sí misma. Ferreiro demuestra que el célebre comienzo de la Cien-cia de la Lógica de Hegel significa precisamente una profundización y radicalización de esa autorreflexión. Ahora bien, a ojos de Hegel el ser del comienzo de la Lógica es en sí mismo como tal el resultado del argumento ontológico; en su formulación clásica, sin embargo, el argumento ontológico sólo aspira a probar que hay algo (Dios), pero el argumento mismo no es como tal capaz de determinar ulteriormente ese algo –esto constituye justamente la tarea de la ontología en el sentido de Hegel, es decir, la tarea de la Lógica. Así, lo que podría denominarse en Hegel una “metafísica” es expresamente una crítica a la metafísica tradicional. En efecto, la ontología que Hegel propone en modo alguno significa una recaída en la metafísica anterior a Kant; por el contrario, en la filosofía de Hegel metafísica y crítica a la metafísica se vinculan íntimamente y con ello se cierra un círculo que se había abierto en la metafísica teológica de la Edad Media: precisamente que este movimiento estaba contenido ya programáticamente en la ontología de la distinción entre esencia y existencia es algo que Ferreiro analiza en forma clara y meticulosa. En cuanto disciplina, la ontología está hoy nuevamente en el centro de la atención de la reflexión filosófica a nivel mundial. Siete ensayos sobre la muerte de la metafísica no sólo ofrece en este respecto un análisis de índole histórica; es también una importante contribución teórica al actual retorno a la ontología. (shrink)

Some people might be tempted by modal ontological arguments from the possibility that God exists to the conclusion that God in fact exists. They might also be tempted to support the claim that possibly God exists by appealing to the conceivability of God’s existence. In this chapter, I introduce three constraints on an adequate theory of philosophical conceivability. I then consider and develop both imagination-based accounts of conceivability and conceptual coherence-based accounts of conceivability. Finally, I return to the modal ontological (...) argument and consider whether the premise that possibly God exists can be supported by some conceiving. (shrink)

Las demostraciones de la existencia de Dios de Christian Wolff se encuentran principalmente en su _Theologia naturalis_. A pesar de que esta obra contiene en cada una de sus dos partes un argumento distinto, Wolff la llama “sistema de Teología natural”. Por ello, puede entenderse que las dos demostraciones no son totalmente independientes, sino que comparten una estructura argumental similar, aunque Wolff no lo mencione expresamente. En este trabajo me propongo mostrar: 1) que aquello que las dos pruebas tienen en (...) común es que ambas están basadas en la noción del ente que tiene en su esencia la razón de su existencia. 2) Que esta noción es el vínculo entre la perfección absoluta y la existencia necesaria. 3) Que la diferencia entre las dos pruebas consiste en que se desarrollan en direcciones opuestas, cada una presentándose como el reverso de la otra. Mientras que la primera parte de la existencia necesaria y concluye con la perfección absoluta, la segunda parte de la perfección absoluta y concluye con la existencia necesaria. (shrink)

Esta enciclopédia abrange, de uma forma introdutória mas desejavelmente rigorosa, uma diversidade de conceitos, temas, problemas, argumentos e teorias localizados numa área relativamente recente de estudos, os quais tem sido habitual qualificar como «estudos lógico-filosóficos». De uma forma apropriadamente genérica, e apesar de o território teórico abrangido ser extenso e de contornos por vezes difusos, podemos dizer que na área se investiga um conjunto de questões fundamentais acerca da natureza da linguagem, da mente, da cognição e do raciocínio humanos, bem (...) como questões acerca das conexões destes com a realidade não mental e extralinguística. A razão daquela qualificação é a seguinte: por um lado, a investigação em questão é qualificada como filosófica em virtude do elevado grau de generalidade e abstracção das questões examinadas (entre outras coisas); por outro, a investigação é qualificada como lógica em virtude de ser uma investigação logicamente disciplinada, no sentido de nela se fazer um uso intenso de conceitos, técnicas e métodos provenientes da disciplina de lógica. O agregado de tópicos que constitui a área de estudos lógico-filosóficos é já visível, pelo menos em parte, no Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus de Ludwig Wittgenstein, uma obra publicada em 1921. E uma boa maneira de ter uma ideia sinóptica do território disciplinar abrangido por esta enciclopédia, ou pelo menos de uma porção substancial dele, é extrair do Tractatus uma lista dos tópicos mais salientes aí discutidos; a lista incluirá certamente tópicos do seguinte género, muitos dos quais se podem encontrar ao longo desta enciclopédia: factos e estados de coisas; objectos; representação; crenças e estados mentais; pensamentos; a proposição; nomes próprios; valores de verdade e bivalência; quantificação; funções de verdade; verdade lógica; identidade; tautologia; o raciocínio matemático; a natureza da inferência; o cepticismo e o solipsismo; a indução; as constantes lógicas; a negação; a forma lógica; as leis da ciência; o número. (shrink)

This paper examines a recent attempt at updating Anselm’s ontological argument by employing the notion of mediated and unmediated causal powers. After presenting the updated argument and the underlying metaphysical framework of causal powers that is utilized in the argument, I show that some of the key assumptions can be rejected. Once we closely examine some of the assumptions, it will also be evident that the updated version in some ways collapses back to Anselm’s original version and so is subject (...) to some of the same worries. (shrink)

This paper aims to argue that Jean-Luc Marion’s philosophical theology is an axio-meonto-Theo-logy which proposes a new way of approaching God. The traditional way of approaching God in theo-logy attained God by the predication and the predicate in the categories of being. However, Marion’s theology attempts to bring out the freedom of God from all categories of being. It provides a critique of the traditional way of approaching God and two arguments for Marion’s alternative approach. On the grounds of the (...) axiological argument and the meontological argument, I defend Marion’s theology from some recent criticisms. (shrink)

Inspired by the third chapter of Anselm's Proslogion, twentieth century philosophers including Charles Hartshorne and Alvin Plantinga developed “modal” ontological arguments for the existence of God. Such arguments use modal logic to infer God's existence from the premises that (i) God's existence is possible and (ii) if God exists, He exists necessarily. Like other ontological arguments, modal arguments have won few converts to theism; many commentators consider them question‐begging or liable to parody. This article details how recent attempts to defend (...) these arguments have tried to overcome these difficulties by drawing on modern accounts of the epistemology and metaphysics of modality. (shrink)

So begins a recent ontological argument. But what if there are no most perfect beings? Letting God be one, that is, letting “God” name one at the very beginning seems premature. Clearly it is best to leave “God” out of the argument until one is in a position to introduce him by existential instantiation, or, by further argumentation, to identify him with a most perfect being: clearly it is best to leave “God” out of the argument until it has been (...) established that there is a most perfect being. (shrink)

In his book Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit suggests that people are not harmed by being conceived with a disease or disability if they could not have existed without suffering that particular condition. He nevertheless contends that entities can be harmed if the suffering they experience is sufficiently severe. By implication, there is a threshold which divides harmful from non-harmful conceptions. The assumption that such a threshold exists has come to play a part in UK policy making. I argue that (...) Parfit’s distinction between harmful and non-harmful conceptions is untenable. Drawing on Kant’s refutation of the ontological argument for God’s existence, I suggest that the act of creation cannot be identical with the act of harming—nor indeed of benefiting—however great the offspring’s suffering may be. I suggest that Parfit is right that bringing children into existence does not usually harm them, but I argue that this must be applied to all conceptions, since Parfit cannot show how the harm threshold can be operationalised. If we think certain conceptions are unethical or should be illegal, this must be on other grounds than that the child is harmed by them. I show that a Millian approach in this context fails to exemplify the empirical and epistemological advantages which are commonly associated with it, and that harm-based legislation would need to be based on broader harm considerations than those relating to the child who is conceived. (shrink)

We use a mechanized verification system, PVS, to examine the argument from Anselm’s Proslogion Chapter III, the so-called “Modal Ontological Argument.” We consider several published formalizations for the argument and show they are all essentially similar. Furthermore, we show that the argument is trivial once the modal axioms are taken into account. This work is an illustration of Computational Philiosophy and, in addition, shows how these methods can help detect and rectify errors in modal reasoning.

Semen Frank (1877–1950) was one of the first and most ardent advocates of the ontological argument in the twentieth century. He proposed an original interpretation of the ontological argument based on its analogy to Descartes’ Cogito. Frank believed that it is possible to develop Cogito ergo sum into Cogito ergo est ens absolutum. In this paper, I analyze his version of the ontological argument. First, I propose a simple reconstruction of his reasoning, paying attention to its hidden premise. Second, departing (...) from the classical logical interpretations of Descartes’ argument, I show that for Frank the claim that God exists had the same logical properties as Cogito. As a result, it seems that his argument was formally correct, though based on a premise which could hardly be convincing for a non-believer. This should not be surprising, however, since Frank, as most Russian religious philosophers, was not interested in the project of philosophical theology. His main concern was rather the development of philosophy based on religious premises, which might be called “theological philosophy”. (shrink)

This paper attacks the modal ontological argument, as advocated by Plantinga among others. Whereas other criticisms in the literature reject one of its premises, the present line is that the argument is invalid. This becomes apparent once we run the argument assuming fictionalism about possible worlds. Broadly speaking, the problem is that if one defines “x” as something that exists, it does not follow that there is anything satisfying the definition. Yet unlike non-modal ontological arguments, the modal argument commits this (...) “existential fallacy” not in relation to the definition of ‘God’. Rather, it occurs in relation to the modal facts quantified over within a Kripkean modal logic. In brief, we can describe the modal facts by whichever logic we prefer—yet it does not follow that there are genuine modal facts, as opposed to mere facts-according-to-the-fiction. A broader consequence of the discussion is that the existential fallacy is an issue for many projects in “armchair metaphysics.”. (shrink)

Oppenheimer & Zalta have re-formulated their non-modal version of the ontological argument, with the help of PROVER9, an automated reasoning engine. The authors end up rejecting the new argument; however, the theist has a rejoinder worth considering. But after presenting the rejoinder, I highlight that the conceivability of the being does not imply its possibility. One lesson is that even non-modal ontological arguments must engage modal matters concerning God. Another lesson is that if PROVER9 is able to derive a conclusion (...) from fewer premises, the proof is sometimes inferior as an argument. (shrink)

An argument for the existence of gods given by the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon and reported by Sextus Empiricus appears to be an ancient version of the ontological argument. In this paper I present a new reconstruction of Diogenes' argument that differs in certain important respects from the reconstruction presented by Jacques Brunschwig. I argue that my reconstruction makes better sense of how Diogenes' argument emerged as a response to an attack on an earlier Stoic argument presented by Zeno of (...) Citium. Diogenes' argument as reconstructed here is an example of a modal ontological argument that makes use of the concept of being of such a nature as to exist. I argue that this concept is a modal concept that is based on the Philonian definition of possibility, and thus that Diogenes' argument is a source of important evidence about the use of non-Stoic modalities in the post-Chrysippean Stoa. I conclude by arguing that the objections made against considering Diogenes' argument as ontological are unfounded and that Diogenes' argument clearly resembles modern versions of modal ontological arguments. (shrink)

At the end of the last section we anticipated the concluding page of the argument, where Plato makes the soul imperishable, as well as not-dead, and where he describes finally the soul's withdrawal at the approach of death. For the conclusion that the soul never admits death, and is in that sense was probably in Plato's eyes the heart of the argument. The final page, we shall argue, will have seemed to Plato in some ways less important, and even something (...) of an embarrassment. (shrink)

At the end of the last section we anticipated the concluding page of the argument, where Plato makes the soul imperishable, as well as not-dead, and where he describes finally the soul's withdrawal at the approach of death. For the conclusion that the soul never admits death, and is in that sense was probably in Plato's eyes the heart of the argument. The final page, we shall argue, will have seemed to Plato in some ways less important, and even something (...) of an embarrassment. (shrink)

Wittgenstein did not write on the philosophy of religion. But certain strands of his later thought readily lend themselves to what I call Wittgensteinian Fideism. There is no text that I can turn to for an extended statement of this position, but certain remarks made by Winch, Hughes, Malcolm, Geach, Cavell, Cameron and Coburn can either serve as partial statements of this position, or can be easily used in service of such a statement. Some of their contentions will serve as (...) targets for my argumentation, for as much as I admire Wittgenstein, it seems to me that the fideistic conclusions drawn by these philosophers from his thought are often absurd. This leads me back to an inspection of their arguments and the premisses in these arguments. (shrink)

The concept of God is studied using the ontological argument of Anselm of Canterbury that proves God’s existence using a syllogism based on ontology. Unlike metaphysical arguments that demonstrate the existence of God through the study of being and its attributes, the ontological argument aims to reach this same goal based on a concept of God by means of the idea of an entity “greater than anything that can be conceived”. Descartes’ influence highlighted some of the philosophical difficulties with the (...) inherent dualism implicit in ontology. Logic does not say whether ideas are true or false, as Logic is concerned with right or wrong inference. We take a non-dualist approach in contrast to some of the approaches reviewed. To investigate belief and faith, a modal logical formalization is used, especially modal logic S5, which we find appropriate for presenting arguments. While mathematics and logic can convince, they do not help one to believe in God. This can make us think that reason is not enough to accept God, one must have faith to have access to Him. The relation between reason and faith needs clarification, and the ontological argument requires an unsustainable dualism. (shrink)

Peter Millican (2004) provides a novel and elaborate objection to Anselm's ontological argument. Millican thinks that his objection is more powerful than any other because it does not dispute contentious 'deep philosophical theories' that underlie the argument. Instead, it tries to reveal the 'fatal flaw' of the argument by considering its 'shallow logical details'. Millican's objection is based on his interpretation of the argument, according to which Anselm relies on what I call the 'principle of the superiority of existence' (PSE). (...) I argue that (i) the textual evidence Millican cites does not provide a convincing case that Anselm relies on PSE and that, moreover, (ii) Anselm does not even need PSE for the ontological argument. I introduce a plausible interpretation of the ontological argument that is not vulnerable to Millican's objection and conclude that even if the ontological argument fails, it does not fail in the way Millican thinks it does. (shrink)

Consider three widely shared claims that have not been discussed vis-à-vis one another. In his Proslogion, Saint Anselm argued that the claim “God exists” is true. If an intuition that a claim c is a useful a-priori justificatory resource, this can only be because such an intuition is a justification that c is true. And if an intuition that c is a justification that c is true, c can stand, not only for mathematical or logical claims, but also for controversial (...) philosophical ones, e.g., “God exists”. This essay addresses to while dialoguing with the literature on Anselm and intuition and articulating an alternative reading of the Proslogion. The alternative reading is that regardless of whether the Proslogion backs up or aims to back up the claim that “God exists” is true, it implicitly articulates the Meaning Argument whose conclusion is that all persons of faith are able to understand that the claim “God exists” is meaningful. This argument, it is argued, is evidence that an intuition that c may be a useful a-priori justificatory resource even if such intuition does not track truth, but merely meaning in being a justification for taking c to be meaningful. It is also supported that an intuition that “God exists” is not a justification that this claim is true. This is an indication that there may be reasons for thinking that the same applies to other controversial philosophical claims. (shrink)

Anselm's Ontological Argument fails, but not for any of the various reasons commonly adduced. In particular, its failure has nothing to do with violating deep Kantian principles by treating ‘exists’ as a predicate or making reference to ‘Meinongian’ entities. Its one fatal flaw, so far from being metaphysically deep, is in fact logically shallow, deriving from a subtle scope ambiguity in Anselm's key phrase. If we avoid this ambiguity, and the indeterminacy of reference to which it gives rise, then his (...) argument is blocked even if his supposed Meinongian extravagances are permitted. Moreover it is blocked in a way which is straightforward and compelling (by contrast with the Kantian objections), and which generalizes easily to other versions of the Ontological Argument. A significant moral follows. Fear of Anselm's argument has been hugely influential in motivating ontological fastidiousness and widespread reluctance to countenance talk of potentially non-existing entities. But if this paper is correct, then the Ontological Argument cannot properly provide any such motivation. Some of the most influential contributions to ontology, from Kant to Russell and beyond, rest on a mistake. (shrink)

Philosophy Compass, Volume 17, Issue 7, July 2022.

Anselm’s ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God. This paper presents Iris Murdoch’s ontological argument for the existence of the Good. It discusses her interpretation of Anselm’s argument, her distinctive appropriation of it, as well as some of the merits of her version of the argument. In doing so, it also shows how the argument integrates some key Murdochian ideas: morality’s wide scope, the basicness of vision to morality, moral realism, and Platonism.

C entral to most religions are God and belief in God. But while this is so for nearly all religions, questions regarding the nature and existence of God have long been a welter for believer and nonbeliever alike. This is not purely a historical comment. Long enduring confusions about God's existence and nature persist and, it seems to me, have even deepened recently. Consider the spectrum of things contemporaneously said about God's existence.

There are several styles of ontological argument. Here are examples of the first style. God has all perfections. Existence is a perfection. ∴God exists. All perfect beings exist. God is a perfect being. ∴God exists. God couldn't be improved. A being that doesn't exist could be improved . ∴God exists.

In his eleventh century dialogue De Casu Diaboli, Anselm seeks to avoid the problem of evil for theodicy and explain the fall of Satan as attributable to Satan’s own self-creating wrongful will. It is something, as such, for which God as Satan’s divine Creator cannot be held causally or morally responsible. The distinctions on which Anselm relies presuppose an interesting metaphysics of nonbeing, and of the nonbeing of evil in particular as a privation of good, worthy of critical philosophical investigation (...) in its own right. Anselm’s concept of nonbeing does not resolve the philosophical problem of evil implied by Satan’s fall from grace, but is shown perhaps more unexpectedly to enable Anselm’s proof for the inconceivable nonexistence of God as the greatest conceivable intended object of thought to avoid Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason objection to the general category of ”ontological’ arguments. (shrink)

Many versions of the ontological argument have two shortcomings: First, despite the arguments put forward, for example, by Hugh Chandler and Nathan Salmon, they assume that S5 is the correct modal logic for metaphysical modality. Second, despite the classical arguments put forward, for example, by David Hume and Immanuel Kant or the more recent arguments put forward, for example, by John Findlay and Richard Swinburne, they assume that necessary existence is possible. The aim of the paper is to develop an (...) alternative version of the ontological argument that, by an appeal to the logic of ‘actually’, avoids these two shortcomings. The version helps to leave aside unnecessary debates about the modal logic S5 or about the possibility of necessary existence and to focus on the actual challenge for the debate about the ontological argument: the challenge to evaluate the claim that it is possible that God exists. (shrink)

This article is a presentation of Plantinga’s ontological argument in its historical and systematical frames. Criticisms of the argument are presented as well. Philosophical claims underlying the defense of the argument are described as minimalist, but their connection with a strong logical system is noted.

It is often said that the ontological argument fails because it wrongly treats existence as a first-level property or predicate. This has proved a controversial claim, and efforts to evaluate it are complicated by the fact that the words ‘existence is not a property/predicate’ have been used by philosophers to make at least three different negative claims: (a) one about a first-level phenomenon possessed by objects like horses, stones, you and me; (b) another about the logical form of assertions of (...) existence; and (c) still another about a second-level phenomenon possessed by concepts when they are instantiated. I argue that only the last of these claims, originally voiced by Kant, is both plausible and relevant to the ontological argument. And I try to show that the relevance of the Kantian version comes from its providing the underlying justification for a different, and far less controversial, criticism of the ontological argument. (shrink)

Em seu artigo “Kant’s Critique of the Three Theistic Proofs [partial], from Kant’s Rational Theology”, incluído no livro Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Critical Essays, Allen Wood pretende mostrar que Kant não teria provado que a existência não poderia ser um predicado real ou determinante. Em seu artigo “Anselm’s Ontological Arguments”, publicado na revista The Philosophical Review, Norman Malcolm pretende mostrar que Kant não teria provado que a existência necessária não poderia ser um predicado real ou determinante. Lidando com as (...) defesas de Wood e Malcolm para o argumento ontológico contra as críticas de Kant, pretendo sugerir, primeiramente, que o argumento de Kant funciona e, em segundo lugar, que ele não depende dos seus Postulados do Pensamento Empírico. Na verdade, advogo a tese de que o segundo Postulado poderia ser justificado por um apelo às conclusões de Kant sobre a existência, na seção “Sobre a impossibilidade de uma prova ontológica da existência de Deus”. (shrink)

A new version of the ontological argument for the existence of God is outlined and examined. After giving a brief account of some traditional ontological arguments for the existence of God, where their defects are identified, it is explained how this new argument is built upon their foundations and surmounts their defects. In particular, this version uses the resources of impossible worlds to plug the common escape route from standard modal versions of the ontological argument. After outlining the nature of (...) impossible worlds, and motivating the need for positing them, the new argument is delineated and its premises justified. It is taken for granted that the argument cannot be sound, since it would prove too much. However, its premises are all plausible, and their denial promises to have significant ramifications. Several intuitive lines of objections are then explored in order to illuminate their shortcomings. The puzzle that the argument poses is therefore not whether the argument is sound, for it clearly cannot be. Rather, it is to place pressure on its plausible premises, so some plausible account of how the argument fails can be identified, and that the devising of such an account promises to be insightful. In the process, we should gain an improved understanding of how such ontological arguments work. (shrink)

In this paper, we discuss formal reconstructions of Anselm’s ontological argument. We first present a number of requirements that any successful reconstruction should meet. We then offer a detailed preparatory study of the basic concepts involved in Anselm’s argument. Next, we present our own reconstructions—one in modal logic and one in classical logic—and compare them with each other and with existing reconstructions from the reviewed literature. Finally, we try to show why and how one can gain a better understanding of (...) Anselm’s argument by using modern formal logic. In particular, we try to explain why formal reconstructions of the argument, despite its apparent simplicity, tend to become quite involved. (shrink)