On the Logic of the Ontological Argument
Paul Oppenheimer, Edward N. Zalta
Abstract
Paul Oppenheimer, Edward N. Zalta
Abstract
Saint Anselm of Canterbury offered several arguments for the existence of God.We examine the famous ontological argument in Proslogium ii.Many recent authors have interpreted this argument as a modal one. 1 But we believe that Jonathan Barnes has argued persuasively that Anselm's argument is not modal. 2Even if one were to construe the word 'can' in the definite description 'that than which none greater can be conceived' in terms of metaphysical possibility, the logic of the ontological argument itself doesn't include inferences based on this modality.In this paper, we develop a reading of Anselm's Proslogium that contains no modal inferences.Rather, the argument turns on the difference between saying that there is such a thing as x and saying that x has the property of existence.We formally represent the claim that there is such a thing as x
OpenAlex reports 52 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Saint Anselm of Canterbury offered several arguments for the existence of God.We examine the famous ontological argument in Proslogium ii.Many recent authors have interpreted this argument as a modal one. 1 But we believe that Jonathan Barnes has argued persuasively that Anselm's argument is not modal. 2Even if one were to construe the word 'can' in the definite description 'that than which none greater can be conceived' in terms of metaphysical possibility, the logic of the ontological argument itself doesn't include inferences based on this modality.In this paper, we develop a reading of Anselm's Proslogium that contains no modal inferences.Rather, the argument turns on the difference between saying that there is such a thing as x and saying that x has the property of existence.We formally represent the claim that there is such a thing as x
Key concepts: Argument (complex analysis), Epistemology, Ontological argument, Philosophy, Philosophy of religion, Medicine, Internal medicine