Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Ontological arguments and belief in God
- Introduction
- 1 Some historical considerations
- 2 Definitional arguments
- 3 Conceptual arguments
- 4 Modal arguments
- 5 Meinongian arguments
- 6 Experiential arguments
- 7 “Hegelian” arguments
- 8 Application to historical arguments
- 9 Are there (other) global objections to ontological arguments?
- 10 Is existence a predicate?
- 11 The uses of parody
- 12 Are ontological arguments of any use to theists and/or atheists?
- Conclusion
- Literature notes
- Bibliography
- Index
4 - Modal arguments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Ontological arguments and belief in God
- Introduction
- 1 Some historical considerations
- 2 Definitional arguments
- 3 Conceptual arguments
- 4 Modal arguments
- 5 Meinongian arguments
- 6 Experiential arguments
- 7 “Hegelian” arguments
- 8 Application to historical arguments
- 9 Are there (other) global objections to ontological arguments?
- 10 Is existence a predicate?
- 11 The uses of parody
- 12 Are ontological arguments of any use to theists and/or atheists?
- Conclusion
- Literature notes
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
There are four kinds of modal arguments that I shall consider in this section. The first kind turns on the use that can be made of the ‘actually’ operator; the second kind turns on the use that can be made of the ‘necessity’ operator; the third kind turns on a weak version of the principle of sufficient reason; and the fourth kind turns on the properties of incomprehensible beings.
MODAL ARGUMENTS INVOLVING ACTUALITY
A simple version of a modal ontological argument that involves the ‘actually’ operator is the following:
It is possible that it actually is the case that God exists. (Premise)
(Hence) God exists. (From 1)
There are modal logics in which this is a valid argument. In particular, if a “nonshifty” actually operator - that is, an actually operator that is such that even when it is embedded in the scope of other operators, it always refers back to the world of its utterance - is added to the modal logic S5, then the argument is valid.
However, if the actually operator is given a nonshifty reading, then there is no reason for an agnostic to assent to the premise. After all, on this reading, the possibility judgment in question just amounts to a judgment that God exists. Any reasonable agnostic will see equal merit in the following argument:
It is possible that it is actually the case that God does not exist. (Premise)
(Hence) God does not exist. (From 1)
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ontological Arguments and Belief in God , pp. 65 - 84Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1996