Q&A: The Ontological Proof
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
The Ontological Proof
Question
Does the very existence of the Proslogion, chapter 3, prove that the argument in chapter 2 contains assumptions and is therefore not purely logical, and that chapter 3 is needed in order to make the transition from an epistemic claim to an ontic claim?
Answer
As far as I remember (I haven’t looked into it right now), both of them deal with the epistemic and move from there to the ontic. But regardless of that, there really are implicit assumptions there.