On the PROVER9 Ontological Argument

• Published in: Philosophia (Ramat Gan) Vol. 43; no. 2; pp. 475 - 483
• Main Author: Parent, T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01-06-2015; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Atheism; Education; Epistemology; Ethics; God; Philosophy; Philosophy of Language; Philosophy of Mind; Philosophy of Science; The ontological argument for God's existence; Atheism-theism debate; Modality; Impossibilia or impossible objects; Being
• ISSN: 0048-3893; 1574-9274
• DOI: 10.1007/s11406-015-9594-6

Oppenheimer & Zalta have re-formulated their non-modal version of the ontological argument, with the help of PROVER9, an automated reasoning engine. The authors end up rejecting the new argument; however, the theist has a rejoinder worth considering. But after presenting the rejoinder, I highlight that the conceivability of the being does not imply its possibility. One lesson is that even non-modal ontological arguments must engage modal matters concerning God. Another lesson is that if PROVER9 is able to derive a conclusion from fewer premises, the proof is sometimes inferior as an argument.