Mechanized Analysis Of a Formalization of Anselm’s Ontological Argument by Eder and Ramharter∗
نویسنده
چکیده
Eder and Ramharter [7] propose requirements to be satisfied by formal reconstructions of informal arguments and illustrate these with their own reconstructions of Anselm’s Ontological Argument: one in classical (higher-order) logic, and one in modal logic. I reproduce and mechanically check their classical reconstruction in the PVS verification system and present this as an illustration of the ease and benefit of mechanized analysis in this domain. I hope this may stimulate philosophers and theologians to investigate these tools from computer science, and to explore their application to topics of philosophical interest.
منابع مشابه
Formal reconstructions of St. Anselm's ontological argument
In this paper, we discuss formal reconstructions of Anselm’s ontological argument. We first present a number of requirements that any successful reconstruction should meet. We then offer a detailed preparatory study of the basic concepts involved in Anselm’s argument. Next, we present our own reconstructions—one in modal logic and one in classical logic—and compare them with each other and with...
متن کاملA Mechanically Assisted Examination of Begging the Question in Anselm’s Ontological Argument
I use mechanized verification to examine several firstand higher-order formalizations of Anselm’s Ontological Argument against the charge of begging the question. I propose three different criteria for a premise to beg the question in fully formal proofs and find that one or another applies to all the formalizations examined. My purpose is to demonstrate that mechanized verification provides an...
متن کاملThe Ontological Parody: A Reply to Joshua Ernst’s “Charles Hartshorne and the Ontological Argument”
Charles Hartshorne argues that Kant’s criticisms of Anselm’s onto logical argument were not directed against its strongest formulation. Kant criticised the argument on the famous grounds that existence is not a predicate (B620–30); however, Hartshorne argued that there is a modal distinction that needs to be made between existing contingently and existing necessarily, and while “existence” per...
متن کاملThe One Fatal Flaw in Anselm’s Argument
Anselm’s Ontological Argument fails, but not for any of the various reasons commonly adduced. In particular, its failure has nothing to do with violating deep Kantian principles by treating ‘exists’ as a predicate or making reference to ‘Meinongian’ entities. Its one fatal flaw, so far from being metaphysically deep, is in fact logically shallow, deriving from a subtle scope ambiguity in Anselm...
متن کاملThe relevance of Kant’s objection to Anselm’s ontological argument
The most famous objection to the ontological argument is given in Kant’s dictum that existence is not a real predicate. But it is not obvious how this slogan is supposed to relate to the ontological argument. Some, most notably Alvin Plantinga, have even judged Kant’s dictum to be totally irrelevant to Anselm’s version of the ontological argument. In this paper I argue, against Plantinga and ot...
متن کامل