Document Type : Translation & Critic

Author

 M.A. Philosophy of Religion, Allameh Tabatabaii University

Abstract

In his 1987 paper, Jordan Howard Sobel showed that Gödel’s ontological argument faces modal collapse and, therefore, it is not sound. C. Anthony Anderson, in his 1990 paper, proposed an amended version of the argument in which modal collapse is blocked. In his parody, Graham Oppy, however, cast a serious doubt on the soundness of Anderson’s version. Alexander Pruss, however, in his 2009 paper, endeavored to block this parody by proposing some new Gödelian ontological arguments. In this paper, I will be trying to inquire into Gödel’s ontological argument, Sobel’s objections, Anderson’s emendations, Oppy’s parody, and Pruss’ ontological arguments.

Keywords

 
رعنائی، مهدی (1391). «استدلال هستی‌شناسیک گودل»، منطق‌پژوهی، ش ۵.
 
Adams, R. M. (1995). ‘Introductory Note to *1970’, In K. Gödel, Collected Works, Vol. 3: Unpublished Essays and Lectures, New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, C. (1990). ‘Some Emendations on Gödel's Ontological Proof’, Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 7.
Gettings, M. (1999). ‘Gödel's ontological argument: a reply to Oppy ’, Analysis, Vol. 59.
Hájek, P. (1996). ‘Magari and Others on Gödel's Ontological Proof’, Gödel '96: Foundations of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics? Kurt Gödel's Legacy, P. Hájek (ed.), Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Maydole, R. E. (2009). ‘The Ontological Argument’, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, W. Lane Crage and P. Moreland (eds.), New York: Blackwell.
Oppy, G. (1996). ‘Godelian Ontological Arguments’, Analysis, Vol. 56.
Oppy, G. (2000). ‘Response to Gettings’, Analysis, Vol. 60.
Oppy, G. (2011). Ontological Arguments, Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/ontological-arguments/
Pruss, A. (2009). ‘A Gödelian Ontological Argument Improved’, Religious Studies, Vol. 45.
Sobel, J. H. (2004). Logic and Theism, New York: Cambridge University Press.