Modal Logic vs. Ontological Argument
European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4 (2):179--185 (2012)
Abstract
The contemporary versions of the ontological argument that originated from Charles Hartshorne are formalized proofs based on unique modal theories. The simplest well-known theory of this kind arises from the b system of modal logic by adding two extra-logical axioms: “If the perfect being exists, then it necessarily exists‘ and “It is possible that the perfect being exists‘. In the paper a similar argument is presented, however none of the systems of modal logic is relevant to it. Its only premises are the axiom and, instead of, the new axiom : “If the perfect being doesn’t exist, it necessarily doesn’t‘. The main goal of the work is to prove that is no more controversial than and -- in consequence -- the whole strength of the modal ontological argument lies in the set of its extra-logical premises. In order to do that, three arguments are formulated: ontological, “cosmological‘ and metalogical.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BIAMLV
Upload history
Archival date: 2018-03-14
View other versions
View other versions
Added to PP index
2017-03-10
Total views
250 ( #21,615 of 57,067 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
56 ( #12,881 of 57,067 )
2017-03-10
Total views
250 ( #21,615 of 57,067 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
56 ( #12,881 of 57,067 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.