TITLE

A Poor Man’s Analysis of the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

PREMISE

The Ontological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. This article represents my journey of learning the tenants of the argument and whether it is indeed persuasive and revolutionary to the field of theistic evidence and reasoning.

INTRODUCTION

The Ontological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Apologists, or those who seek to defend the Christian faith through reason and logic, use many different arguments based on scientific discoveries to attempt to prove the existence of God. In this case, the Ontological Arguments relies solely on philosophical reasoning. It is purely a logical thought experiment but one that has sparked debate for centuries. The word Ontology refers to the study of being, existence and reality and is a fitting title for this argument. The Ontological Argument itself, and its rebuttals, have shaped the discourse on the existence of God in the past and will continue to do so in the future. This article is my attempt to not only convey these concepts to the readers, but also to better understand it myself. The writing herein is not purely a summary of the logical argument, but one filled with commentary as well. There have been, and will be, those with much greater knowledge on this philosophical topic than I will ever achieve, let alone currently possess. Yet the average human rarely has time to undergo the process of becoming a philosopher, at least in the purest form. I believe each of us has the drive to grow in knowledge through analyzing the world around us, something that we do every day without realizing it. Many of us draw on foundational conclusions to build a reality around us, a world we can understand. Those willing to step into the insane, the unknown, are those who see the world for what it is: a universe filled with such depth and mystery that it would take a thousand generations to begin to grasp it. A philosopher is willing to shake the foundation, challenge the norm, and use the basics to rebuild what we know about the world around us. I would ask of you today that you join me on this brief journey through some philosophical reasoning, forgetting your presuppositions, and using your mind to explore this concept with me. I took this stance while researching and writing this and it proved rewarding.

THE ARGUMENT

The Ontological Argument in its original form is proposed like this:

Premise 1: It is true by definition that God is the greatest possible being that can be imagined.

Premise 2: God exists as an idea in the mind.

Premise 3: A being that exists in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

Premise 4: Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.

Premise 5: But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. [1]

Now the first time I read this, and the second time, and third time, it didn’t make any sense to me. A completely illogical jump in reason that does not pass any academic standards, let alone common sense. Take a second to read it again, scroll up, and read it until your mind wraps itself around the argument. For many of you, it still won’t make logical sense and certainly isn’t convincing. The goal right now is just to become familiar with that idea, treat this as an introduction to the argument. Let’s briefly dive into the history of the argument before unpacking the premises a little more. We will look at the famous rebuttals of the argument as well and consider both sides of the debate.

THE HISTORY

The Ontological Argument was written by a man named Saint Anselm of Canterbury. He was born in the year 1033 in Burgundy. Little is known about his early life but his entrance into an abbey to study under a prior began a life filled with achievement and wisdom. Years of growth in knowledge and his faith in Christ begot promotions to first the role of prior, onto abbot, and finally onto archbishop. He wrote many works during his life including the Proslogion, which can be translated into a “Discourse on the Existence of God”. This work included many thoughts and reasonings regarding Anselm’s faith in God, including what you now know as the Ontological Argument. In his beautiful work, Anselm ponders what such an argument would look like: [3]

“…I began to ask myself whether there might be found a single argument which would require no other for its proof than itself alone; and alone would suffice to demonstrate that God truly exists, and that there is a supreme good requiring nothing else, which all other things require for their existence and well-being; and whatever we believe regarding the divine Being.” [2]

This was the goal he set before himself, to discover an argument that would be self-containing regarding the existence of God. I use the term “discover” instead of “craft” not because I am presupposing the validity of the argument, but rather I am acknowledging that similar to mathematics, philosophy seems to be something that is discovered rather than created. As we increase in knowledge of our world, we refine our philosophy in a way akin to scientific discovery and advancement, not akin to fanatical theories created without reason. Jumping back into the history of the Proslogion, this was the third discourse written by St. Anselm, completed over two years and culminating in 1078. This work was preceded by the Monologion, another amazing discourse on the nature of God and man. This is where the foundations were being laid for the Ontological Argument, yet Anselm wanted it in its simplest and most straightforward form. He was a man who believed firmly that the empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning would bring any man who truly studied them into the belief of God’s existence. He wrote in the Monologion:

“IF any man, either from ignorance or unbelief, has no knowledge of the existence of one Nature which is highest of all existing beings, which is also sufficient to itself in its eternal blessedness, and which confers upon and effects in all other beings, through its omnipotent goodness, the very fact of their existence, and the fact that in any way their existence is good; and if he has no knowledge of many other things, which we necessarily believe regarding God and his creatures, he still believes that he can at least convince himself of these truths in great part, even if his mental powers are very ordinary, by the force of reason alone.” [2]

St. Anselm honestly believed that having a knowledge of the existence of God can be gained through reason and logic alone. I personally mirror this viewpoint, not as someone who has experienced it to its fullest extent, but as a Christian who is only a Christian today due to this reason. I don’t claim that any argument including this one has the power to bring about faith in Christ. This is so much more a heart and soul issue between man and God, yet I do believe philosophy can give Christians an intellectual foundation upon which to stand. That being said let us jump into the argument and dissect it.

THE LOGIC

Premise 1: It is true by definition that God is the greatest possible being that can be imagined.

The premise here is that there is a being that can be imagined that is the greatest possible being and we would call that being “God”. This requires us to believe that we can logically define the characteristic of the greatest possible being. The argument expounds on this definition with the characteristics of all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect. These are the qualities of God if He existed. We can imagine the greatest possible version of these characteristics, it's logically possible that it could exist. In contrast, if we try to think up the greatest possible version of a pizza the answers are more subjective and technically infinite. However, there is a logical finite maximum for the qualities of all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect. More to dive into later in the rebuttals of the argument but move onto the final segment of the first premise, that we would call that being God. The goal here isn’t to jump to conclusions on what this maximally great being is and to bring the Christian definition of God into the picture. We can move through this entire argument using the term “maximally great being” in lieu of “God”, and the argument works fine. The goal here is to simply use the language that humans would use when describing an all-knowing, all-powerful, and morally perfect being. God = A Maximally Great Being for our uses. Following so far? Hopefully, you better understand premise 1 and maybe even agreed with it so far. The way you should navigate this argument is premise by premise, if you agree with one move onto the next, don’t think about the conclusion until you arrive there.

Premise 2: God exists as an idea in the mind.

The premise here is that we as humans can think up the idea of God, AKA a maximally great being. I think most of us can agree with this premise, we have a pretty good image of the possibilities of this world.

Premise 3: A being that exists in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

The premise here is that existence is greater than nonexistence. Let’s look at an example of something you imagine in your head, let’s say a girlfriend/boyfriend for all you single people out there. We all know that having a significant other in reality is better than purely an imaginative one. Thus we can say that existence is better than nonexistence. The important qualifier is that all factors are held equal. Now the argument is starting to reveal itself by this point and you may have some objections begin to rise. Anslem is beginning to compare the idea of existence in the mind with the idea of existence in reality. We’ll unpack this more in premise 4 and the rebuttals but most of us can still agree with premise 3, that existence is greater (more powerful) than nonexistence, all other factors being equal.

Premise 4: Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.

This premise simply repeats premise 3 in a unique way. If we imagine a maximally great being that ONLY EXISTS in our heads, that can’t possibly be a maximally great being, because we know existence is better than nonexistence. Our imagination is wrong, we weren’t actually thinking of the greatest possible being since existence is greater. BUT….

Premise 5: But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

We said earlier in premise 1 that God is the greatest possible being that can be imagined. We would be trapping ourselves in a paradox should we imagine God in our minds but claim he is not the greatest being possible at the same time. Remember that God = the greatest possible being, all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect. We know that paradoxes cannot exist in reality. The statement “a married bachelor” is a logical paradox and cannot exist. Thus to escape our paradoxical thinking the argument states that in fact the greatest possible being we imagined must exist and we have our conclusion…

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

This conclusion always comes as a slap in the face to me, as if it doesn’t logically follow the premises. Even after the 30th time I’ve read through this, it seems to come too quickly, like we are missing the latter half of the argument. But here we are, we marched through every single premise and established them as legitimate. Once those are established, the conclusion must logically follow according to the laws of nature and philosophy. The only way to refute the conclusion is to attack the premises which we will do next. Before we move on, re-read the premises and make sure you fully understand the logic, especially in premise 5 where it requires some deep thinking to understand why a paradox exists.

THE REBUTTALS

Gaunilo’s Rebuttal

Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a monk and fellow Christian presents a rebuttal to the idea of defining things into existence. I briefly mentioned his criticism earlier in the breakdown of premise 1 when I talked about a maximally great pizza. Gaunilo laid out the following argument:

1. It is a conceptual truth that a Piland is an island that which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).

2. A Piland exists as an idea in the mind.

3. A Piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a Piland that exists only as an idea in the mind.

4. Thus, if a Piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is greater than a Piland (that is, the greatest possible island that does exist).

5. But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a Piland.

6. Therefore, a Piland exists. [1]

This can be used to essentially define things into existence that might not exist in actuality, like a maximally great and perfect pizza. I understand the purpose of this rebuttal and its attempt to expose the seemingly illogical idea of defining things into existence, however, it falls short in premise 1. Notice that a Piland, or a pizza, do not have a set of maximally great characteristics. To say that the perfect pizza exists is an illogical statement since perfect is completely subjective in this scenario. We cannot conceptually think of a perfect pizza to its maximum extent, in other words, we could always add one more piece of pepperoni. This makes the statement incoherent or logical nonsense and is not successful in taking down the Ontological Argument. It is worth noting that the ideas of all powerful, all knowing, and morally perfect are arguably maximally great characteristics of a “God”. The “God” must be able to do everything that is logically possible, ie God wouldn’t have the ability to sin, not because He isn’t all powerful but because it is logically impossible, a paradox, like a “married bachelor”. A further analysis is necessary to dive into these three characteristics but for the purposes of this article is it worth assuming they define a maximally great being. Gaunilo wrote a long discourse in rebuttal to the Proslogion and Anselm wrote a reply to that rebuttal as well. Those discourses can be read later by those interested in the sources below.

St. Aquinas’s Rebuttal

Another defender of the faith, yet a starch proponent of reason, St. Thomas Aquinas had a couple of problems with the Ontological Argument. The most prominent criticism was a rejection of premise 2, which to restate is “God exists as an idea in the mind”. While this may seem to be a completely valid statement at surface level, Aquinas argued that finite man cannot fully comprehend the idea of an infinite being. To say that we can imagine God as a being in our minds is to claim the impossible or to degrade the true essence of him. While this may not sink the Ontological Argument it makes a fair point about the importance of definitions while in discourse and truly understanding what you are attempting to define. [1]

Kant’s Rebuttal

Immanuel Kant, the famed philosopher, took issue with the third premise of the argument. The premise goes as follows “A being that exists in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.” Kant argued that existence is not a predicate, a property, but rather a metaphysical precondition. We can’t assign the “property of existence” to an item like we can color that item red and give it the property of red. Kant says it like this:

“Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations in it. Logically, it is merely the copula of a judgment. The proposition, God is omnipotent, contains two conceptions, which have a certain object or content; the word is, is no additional predicate-it merely indicates the relation of the predicate to the subject. Now if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say, God is, or there is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates – I posit the object in relation to my conception.” [1]

This is an extremely compelling rebuttal to the Ontological Argument. If existence is not a property that cannot be assigned in a classical sense then we cannot describe the same theoretical being, God, with both the “property” of nonexistence and existence. Once again according to Kant, existence is a metaphysical precondition and included in the definition of an item. You cannot give or take away the “property” of the existence of an item, even within philosophical arguments, either it exists or does not.

Kant had a second criticism as well regarding premise 3. He argued that existence is not better than nonexistence. Now once again at face value, it logically follows that having a significant other in reality is better than having a significant other in your imagination. However, if I were to say that my future son would be greater if he existed versus if he did not, I create an incoherent statement. I am comparing his existence to no existence at all, which doesn’t make sense, those cannot be compared. Sure I would be missing out on the experience of fatherhood but that doesn’t mention the quality of the son himself, and how great he is. The greatness of having a significant other in reality is better for me but it says nothing about the greatness of the person themself. If they had never been more, never existed, we can’t say that they are less great since they don’t exist and are not a being on which to apply the quality of greatness. Thus it does not logically follow that existence is greater than nonexistence since it is logically incoherent to compare the two options.

This is where things get sticky and we introduce the second version of the Ontological Argument. Now there are many versions of this written by many authors throughout centuries but in fact, this one was also penned by St. Anselm, in the same discourse. The argument as stated by Anselm:

“God cannot be conceived not to exist. --God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. --That which can be conceived not to exist is not God. AND it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being you are, O Lord, our God. So truly, therefore, do you exist, O Lord, my God, that you can not be conceived not to exist; and rightly. For, if a mind could conceive of a being better than you, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd. And, indeed, whatever else there is, except you alone, can be conceived not to exist. To you alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others. For, whatever else exists does not exist so truly, and hence in a less degree it belongs to it to exist” [2]

I left in this quote to give you a glimpse of the source writing straight from the Proslogion and how insanely complicated it is to understand. I want to give you an appreciation for the intellect of not only St. Anselm but those who can refute his argument as well. I’m right there with you on trying to understand these high-level concepts. For the good of both of us, let's look at a formal version of this second version.

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.

3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.

4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.

6. God exists in the mind as an idea.

7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality. [1]

By this point, you can probably read this once or twice and understand the argument. It follows a similar pattern to the first version yet it excludes something very important, the idea that existence is a property of perfection or greatness. Rather we see necessary existence used which is more clearly a greatness-making property, to say that something is necessarily existing is to say that it does not rely on anything else for its existence which is arguably something that makes you great. There is further discussion necessary on this idea but it is better left for the committed. You’ll notice that in the second version, premise 1 is still susceptible to St. Aquinas’s rebuttal that we cannot even imagine God and to make that claim is to make a logically incoherent statement.

There are countless further renditions of the Ontological Argument and countless rebuttals as well but I won’t bore you, or myself, with those. Countless other philosophers like Descartes, Leibniz, and Hume have weighed in on either the Ontological Argument itself or similar arguments. I would encourage those interested to do more research into Alvin Plantinga’s rendition and discourse on the subject.

MY FINAL THOUGHTS

The Ontological Argument is an incredible work of philosophy and argument crafted by a strong theist. Its many forms and variations have added great debate to the topic of God’s existence and the reality in which we live. My goal in this article was to work through the argument myself, to see its merits and its fallbacks and determine for myself whether it is convincing rhetoric. I wanted to understand it better so my shortcomings were not the limiting factor of its persuasiveness. If it fails as a persuasive argument I wanted it to fail on its own merits, not my faults. While I still struggle to fully wrap my head around the concepts and Kant’s rebuttal, I have a clearer understanding of it today than I ever have. I can confidently say that most Christian apologists today, including myself, find this argument unconvincing by itself. The rebuttals present solid points and the argument itself remains too muddy for my own thinking. I view this exercise not with disdain since it resulted in an unsatisfactory answer for myself but as one that has expanded my knowledge of philosophy and challenged me with convincing arguments on both sides.

I believe that the Ontological Argument or any number of other arguments on the existence of God, won’t ever provide 100% proof on the matter. In fact, in this world there are quite little things that are 100% certain, death and taxes counted among them. We as humans use our senses, our reasoning, and our collective knowledge to continue to make conclusions based on the current best evidence. Similar to new scientific discovery which shakes our presuppositions all the time, our knowledge is continually evolving and improving. While this argument doesn’t stand alone as some sort of truth-lighthouse, many more spring up next to it, hopefully resulting in future articles on my part. It is our job to undergo the due diligence of investigating this evidence ourselves. If we claim that we seek the truth, based on current scientific advancement and philosophical reasoning, we ought to research these areas for ourselves. Who knows what will happen in the future, we will continue to evaluate new evidence and discovery as it appears, but the present is where we decide what we believe.

I challenge you to use this argument as a stepping stool into the world of theistic evidence. I do firmly believe our current best evidence, in all areas of scientific study, philosophy, and ethical theory point towards the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect being. I believe in God because of the evidence, not the lack of evidence leading me to claim it must be God due to humanity’s incomplete knowledge. And yet a scientific belief in God does nothing for your personal faith, morality, and soul. These things require a relationship with Jesus, not just head knowledge. Your head and your heart, while influential to one another, do not live in the same realm. Treat this article, and any further pursuit of this topic, in the realm of your mind. There is a time and a place for your heart to help you make decisions, in the realm of the physical however, scientific evidence and philosophical reasoning must take precedent. Allow yourself to learn more about the arguments for theism, whether to bolster your current knowledge and faith or challenge your existing belief. Thank you so much for reading through my thoughts on the Ontological Argument and your willingness to expand your knowledge by reading this article. Reach out to me for additional discourse on this topic and I will be much obliged. Please reference the sources I have quoted for further discussion on the argument or a read-through of St. Anselm’s work. I leave you with this controversial quote which I personally love:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” – Robert Jastrow (NASA Astronomer and Physicist) [4]

References