The article is devoted to Gödel's Ontological Argument, its place in the history of philosophy, and the current debate over the validity of Ontological Proof. First, we argue that Gödel's argument is a necessary step in the history of the development of Ontological Proof. Second, we show that Gödel's argument is based on implausible axiological principles, but can be appropriately reformulated in terms of plausible axiological principles. Also, we consider the debate over the validity of Gödel`s argument between contemporary neo-Gaunilist (...) Graham Oppy and the advocate of Gödel`s Ontological Proof Michael Gettings. We conclude that Gödel's Ontological Argument is immune to Oppy`s neo-Gaunilism. Finally, given the fact that Oppy`s parody is arguably the most fine-grained Gaunilo-style argument in the history of philosophy, we conclude that Gaunilist line of argumentation, even if successful in refuting Anselm`s Ontological Proof, does not work against Gödel's Ontological Argument. (shrink)

Стаття присвячена онтологічному аргументу Курта Ґьоделя, його місцю в історії філософії і сучасних дебатах стосовно валідності онтологічного доказу. По-перше, ми аргументуємо що Ґьоделів аргумент є необхідним кроком в історії розвитку онтологічного аргументу. По-друге, ми показуємо, що Ґьоделів аргумент засновується на незадовільних аксіологічних принципах, проте може бути переформульований в термінах задовільних аксіологічних принципів. Також ми розглядаємо дебати щодо валідності Ґьоделевого аргументу між сучасним нео-ґаунілістом Ґремом Опі та захисником онтологічного аргументу Майклом Ґетінґсом. Ми доходимо висновку, що онтологічний аргумент Ґьоделя не вразливий до (...) ґаунілізму Опі. Нарешті, враховуючи той факт, що пародія Опі є, імовірно, найбільш досконалим аргументом ґаунілістського ґатунку в історії філософії, ми висновуємо, що ґаунілістська лінія аргументації, навіть якщо є успішною проти аргументу Ансельма, не працює проти аргументу Ґьоделя. (shrink)

The evil God challenge is an argumentative strategy that has been pursued by a number of philosophers in recent years. It is apt to be understood as a parody argument: a wholly evil, omnipotent and omniscient God is absurd, as both theists and atheists will agree. But according to the challenge, belief in evil God is about as reasonable as belief in a wholly good, omnipotent and omniscient God; the two hypotheses are roughly epistemically symmetrical. Given this symmetry, thesis belief (...) in an evil God and belief in a good God are taken to be similarly preposterous. In this paper, we argue that the challenge can be met, suggesting why the three symmetries that need to hold between evil God and good God – intrinsic, natural theology and theodicy symmetries – can all be broken. As such, we take it that the evil God challenge can be met. (shrink)

In this paper, I present what I call the symmetry conception of God within 1st order, extensional, non-well-founded set theory. The symmetry conception comes in two versions. According to the first, God is that unique being that is universally symmetrical with respect to set membership. According to the second, God is the universally symmetrical set of all sets that are universally symmetrical with respect to set membership. I present a number of theorems, most importantly that any universally symmetrical set is (...) identical to its essence, that show that the two symmetry conceptions intersect with some dominant theological conceptions of God. The theorems also show that both of the symmetry conceptions of God entail that God has a fractal like structure. (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)

Ratio, Volume 34, Issue 1, Page 5-6, March 2021.

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)

Latest version of my SEP entry on ontological arguments, which first appeared in 1996. General discussion of ontological arguments. Includes a brief historical overview, a taxonomy of different kinds of ontological arguments, a brief survey of objections to the different kinds of ontological arguments identified in the taxonomy, and more extended discussions of Anselm's ontological argument (Proslogion 2), Godel's ontological argument, and Plantinga's ontological argument.

One popular conception of natural theology holds that certain purely rational arguments are insulated from empirical inquiry and independently establish conclusions that provide evidence, justification, or proof of God’s existence. Yet, some raise suspicions that philosophers and theologians’ personal religious beliefs inappropriately affect these kinds of arguments. I present an experimental test of whether philosophers and theologians’ argument analysis is influenced by religious commitments. The empirical findings suggest religious belief affects philosophical analysis and offer a challenge to theists and atheists, (...) alike: reevaluate the scope of natural theology’s conclusions or acknowledge and begin to address the influence of religious belief. (shrink)

Proponents of the ontological argument for the existence of God typically argue for the existence of a being that has all compossible great-making properties. One such property is necessary existence. If necessary existence cannot be shown to be a great-making property then various modal ontological arguments will fail. Malcom (1960) argues that necessary existence is a great-making property as it entails existing a se which makes it a superior property to contingent existence. I maintain that Malcom’s argument does not succeed (...) since there is nothing that rules out a contingent being, in this case a factually necessary being, from existing a se. Utilizing the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), Bernstein (2014) has argued that necessary existence is a great-making property. I argue that necessary existence is a great making property whether or not the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true. (shrink)