|
- Anselm's Prologion and Reply to Gaunilo (with Introduction by W.H. Kent, Transcribed by Tomas Hancil and Joseph P. Thomas)
"Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality."
- Ontological Arguments from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."
- Kurt Gödel's Ontological Argument by Christopher Small
"Kurt Gödel is best known to mathematicians and the general public for his celebrated incompleteness theorems. Physicists also know his famous cosmological model in which time-like lines close back on themselves so that the distance past and the distant future are one and the same. What is less well known is the fact that Gödel has sketched a revised version of Anselm's traditional ontological argument for the existence of God."
- Peter Suber, The Ontological Argument by Peter Suber
Peter Suber is an Agnostic or Atheist but he demonstrates the OA is valid in certain formulations, however he may not think it is sound.
- Understanding The Ontological Argument by Wade A. Tisthammer
"Defining God as 'the greatest possible being' has a number of interesting consequences. One of them is that it becomes significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that God is not possible. For instance, God is said to have perfect power: omnipotence. But can God create a round square? Can he defy such basic rules of logic? The theist under this definition of God could reply that God is only omnipotent to the greatest possible extent. Thus, this theist could respond by claiming that God cannot do what is logically impossible, but He can do anything that can be done. If a certain level of one of God’s traditional qualities is proved 'impossible,' this theist could then lower the bar on that aspect of God down to where that quality is possible, such as from, 'God is omnipotent and can do literally anything,' to 'God is omnipotent to the greatest possible extent.'"
- The Ontological Argument Talk given at the Centre for Philosphical Studies, King's College, London, on March 4th, 1998 by Mr J.R. Lucas
"If that be the case, we cannot argue that a Perfect Being would have all predicates, and hence, among them, that of existence. All we can say is that the Perfect Being, IF He exists, has all perfections. Kant distinguishes in intellectu from in re, not as a simple distinction easily overreached, but a fundamental one."
- On the Logic of the Ontological Argument(.pdf file) by Paul E. Oppenheimer, Thinking Machines Corporation, and Edward N. Zalta, Philosophy Department
Stanford University
"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 by ‘9y(y=x)’ and the claim that x has the property of existence by ‘E!x’.That is, we represent the difference between the two claims by exploiting the distinction between quantifying over x and predicating existence of x."
- The Ontological Argument by John DePoe
"Norman Malcolm, a prominent contemporary philosopher, revived the ontological argument with his new interpretation. Malcolm suggests that Anselm's Proslogion actually contains two ontological arguments. The first argument follows the lines of a "great-making" property, which Malcolm thinks is fallacious following Kant's objection. However, he thinks the second argument is cogent. The second argument according to Malcolm follows from the idea of a necessary being. A necessary being exists in all possible worlds, so if it is possible for it to exist, then it must exist. So if God is a necessary being, then he must exist if it is possible for him to exist."
- Ontological Argument Revisited by Two Ottoman Muslim Scholars by Ümit Dericioglu
"St. Anselm's famous ontological argument has been disputed by many Western Philosophers to our day. However, this discussion seemed to have been limited to Western Philosophy until I have recently come across the opinions of two great Ottoman Muslim scholars. Since they were raised with a strong traditional Islamic education which taught rich philosophical and theological heritage of Islam, their accounts for the ontological argument are quite interesting. Their opinions are not known very much in the West, perhaps mostly because they wrote in Ottoman Turkish and Arabic. The objective of this article is to make their opinions available in English for those who are interested in this dispute."
- The Ontological Argument for God's Existence -- "A concept greater than which first meets the eye" by Dave Armstrong
"This paper collects some materials favoring the ontological argument -- which I (as a Catholic apologist) now respect to a far greater degree than when I began this research --, including a tentative presentation of my own version of it. The reader is urged to read more than once any section which is difficult to grasp at first; and some sections may be easier to understand, upon a second reading, once other sections are read. The argument is very subtle and requires one to think in ways which are not the usual, everyday modes of thinking and analyzing. But it is not impossible to grasp, and I have taken pains to edit out philosophically difficult or overly-abstract or symbolic logic portions of the philosophers I have cited."
|
|
