Some Emendations of Gödel's Ontological Proof

Faith and Philosophy 7 (3):291-303 (1990)
Abstract
Kurt Gödel’s version of the ontological argument was shown by J. Howard Sobel to be defective, but some plausible modifications in the argument result in a version which is immune to Sobel’s objection. A definition is suggested which permits the proof of some of Godel’s axioms
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,351
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA
    Srećko Kovač (2008). Gödel, Kant, and the Path of a Science. Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):147-169.
    Graham Oppy (2009). Pruss's Ontological Arguments. Religious Studies 45 (3):355-363.
    Similar books and articles
    Gregor Damschen (2011). Questioning Gödel's Ontological Proof: Is Truth Positive? European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (1):161-169.
    Jeremy Avigad (2010). Proof Theory. Gödel and the Metamathematical Tradition. In Kurt Gödel, Solomon Feferman, Charles Parsons & Stephen G. Simpson (eds.), Kurt Gödel: Essays for His Centennial. Association for Symbolic Logic.
    A. P. Hazen (1998). On Gödel's Ontological Proof. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (3):361 – 377.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2011-01-09

    Total downloads

    33 ( #44,403 of 1,088,398 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    3 ( #30,936 of 1,088,398 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.