Modal Logic vs. Ontological Argument

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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
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 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.