On the PROVER9 Ontological Argument
- 197 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAtheism-theism debate The ontological argument for God's existence Being Modality Impossibilia or impossible objects
My thanks to Ed Zalta and an anonymous referee for comments and discussion on this material.
- Baker, L. (2013). Updating Anselm again. Research in Philosophica, 90(1), 23–32.Google Scholar
- Baker, L., & Matthews, G. (2010). Anselm’s argument reconsidered. The Review of Metaphysics, 64(1), 31–54.Google Scholar
- Millican, P. (2007). Ontological arguments and the superiority of existence: Reply to Nagasawa. Mind, 116, 1041–1053.Google Scholar
- Plantinga, A. (1974). The nature of necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Zalta, E. (1988). Intensional logic and the metaphysics of intentionality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar