Introduction
The ontological argument is like no other, and one can argue there has not been a
more thought-provoking argument ever presented for the existence of God. The ontological argument was first presented by Anselm of Canterbury,
and where cynical philosophers take the existence of this argument for granted,
the argument attests to being very relevant today when considering divine
providence. When this argument was first presented Christian philosophers did
not wait long before trying to refute the argument. However, no one has
successfully refuted this argument, which is why well-respected philosophers
and apologists still find value in Anselm’s reasoning. The very belief in God
is something people have taken for granted, thus when reading refutations to
Anselm’s argument one suspects many critics have forgotten the God Anselm is
referring to was not made up by him.
Anselm’s
Ontological Argument
Anselm had been
seeking after a single argument to prove the existence of God, one so powerful
the logic could not be refuted, an argument that “would require no other for
its proof than itself alone.”[1] The ontological
argument has troubled cynical philosophers for generations but only because so
many have no respect for the premise. Anselm argued God is a being so great
humanity cannot imagine one greater, this idea is so great because the mind
knows God can exist as something more than an idea, and since we cannot imagine
one greater, God must exist.[2] Readers
should note Anselm was not seeking after an answer because of a lack of faith,
for being a good Christian he knew faith comes from hearing the good news about
Jesus Christ (Rom. 10:17 NIV).[3] Out of his faithfulness to his first love he
sought after a deeper understanding of Him.
The argument can be
summarized in the following steps;
1.
God is understood or
defined as a being “than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Even the fool
possesses this concept of God.
2.
A thing exists either in
(a) the understanding only (such as the idea of a painting before it is
painted) or (b) in both the understanding and reality, such as existing in the
mind of the painter and then existing on the canvas.
3.
It is “greater” to exist
in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.
4.
If God exists merely in
the understanding (existing only in the mind of the fool), then God is not the
greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater
than a being that existed only in the understanding.
5.
But God is by definition
the greatest possible being (from 1).
6.
Therefore, God exists
not merely in the understanding (as the fool claims) but in reality, as well. [4]
How the Argument was
Received
Anselm’s argument was quickly judged by
Gaunilon, a Monk of Marmoutier, who, for some reason, attempted to refute the
argument with a parody by replacing God with a magical island.[5]
Which does not work because Anselm is talking about God not an imagined island
which one can imagine being affected or changed in some way. Today people may
use a common argument, as in implying God’s existence is as likely as a supreme
spaghetti monster. This magical island argument does not stand because people
take for granted humans can imagine a paradise island, but they cannot make up
a perfect eternal God while living in what appears to be an imperfect dying
world. More on this later. Essentially, Gaunilo argues if humans are unable to fully
conceive the concept of God then the ontological argument will not work.[6]
However, somehow humans can believe in God, an eternal being outside of space
and time capable of creating our universe. Anselm responded by clarifying the
point he is talking about a perfect being, God whom is unchanging, and nothing
can be conceived as greater.[7] A
person cannot add to God; thus, a person cannot imagine God being made greater
in some way.[8] With
regards to parody attacks on the ontological argument Yujin Nagasawa observes
how the parody arguments have to be modified in a way where the argument
becomes, “…ironically, no longer a parody: it is the ontological argument
itself.”[9]
Proving to be more mature Thomas Aquinas, argued only God could understand His
essence.[10] Understanding
God’s essence must always be beyond human comprehension, however He did reveal
a big part of Himself to selected human beings, who then shared this knowledge
of God with others.
From
Anselm to Today: How has the Intellectual Setting Changed?
Computational tools have been used to analyze
the ontological argument proving how seriously intellectuals take this
argument. Upon studying this argument with computational methods, readers
should find interesting how the findings state the greater than part to the argument is hardly necessary for the
argument to be effective.[11] This recalls how when God had spoken to Moses
from the burning bush He did not say to Moses, “Tell Pharaoh, the one who is
greater than all, has sent you!” This seems so unnatural for the one true God,
for if He referred to Himself as the one greater than all this would leave
readers wondering why God would have to verify His supreme greatness. God’s
response seems most natural when He simply stated, “I Am Who I Am” (Exo. 3:14).
Once God has revealed Himself to someone the response from this person is a
natural recognition for the obvious, this being God is God and nothing can be
perceived as greater. Which is why Job did not seek after any profound answers
from God upon God revealing Himself to Job, instead despite all he suffered Job
spoke on how he trusted in God’s purpose (Job 42:2). Upon feeling God’s holy
presence Job felt such shame and guilt as he stated, “…I despise myself and
repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:1-6). The whole argument over God’s existence
only proves how proudful and foolish humans are when pondering the God whom no
person could ever makeup. The computationally simplified ontological argument
shows Anselm was overly dependent on metaphysics when presenting the argument,
for logic alone was enough to prove God exists.[12] Which this makes perfect sense when a person
humbly recognizes how logic was not created by man, logic is from God, God
thinks logically and those made in His image should do the same.
Multiple philosophers have argued how despite
Anselm’s argument being epistemically safe, this does not mean the argument has
proven God’s existence, to which Plantinga and other reformed epistemology
believing Christians would agree.[13] Thus, some philosophers still argue against the God Anselm sought to
prove, by referring to how the injustice of human suffering reasons against the
Christian God, which is consequently an appeal to emotions and a weak argument.[14] Upon formally reconstructing Anselm’s
argument, the observations were Anselm did not explain what he meant by
“greater,” the issue of comparing the hypothetical God to Himself cannot be
easily expressed by logical representation, and Anselm is ambiguous with
regards to “how things in the understanding are related to conceiving.”[15] Ultimately one can reason God exists, but one
cannot make sense of why He created anything in the first place, though
speculation is possible, but certainty on why is not possible, apart from
divine revelation.[16] William Lane Craig believes in the God of the
Divinely inspired Bible, and he has made use of the ontological argument alongside
with the historical evidence for the Bible. The respected philosopher Alvin
Plantinga has reworded this argument in such a manner where the listener must
conclude there is the possibility of a “maximally great being existing.[17] Plantinga
defines a being of maximal greatness must have maximal excellence in every
world, and thus such a being must be omnipotent, and morally perfect.[18] Such well respected philosophers as these are very unlikely to waste
their time with a weak argument. When this argument is linked with the
scientific fact the universe had a beginning and is fine-tuned the strength of
the argument is ever clearer. The reason the evidence for design is so
important is because this proves the concept of God is not irrational.[19] The
ontological argument makes sense logically when one considers other reasons for
the creation of the universe. Is it possible the finely-tuned universe came
into being from nothing? The basic law of cause and effect clearly demonstrates
the answer is no the universe could not have come into being from nothing. And
the idea of the universe having created itself also does not make logical
sense, for something cannot create itself. If not for the discovery of the big
bang perhaps one could argue the universe is eternal, however since the
manifestly designed universe had a beginning the most logical assumption should
be a Supreme Being is the cause. Readers must remember, and not take for
granted the fact there was belief in God before any discoveries proving His
existence, still because of the evidence for design apologists often make use
of the cosmological argument alongside the ontological argument.
Plantinga’s refined ontological argument can be put formally:
1.
God is defined as a
maximally great or Perfect Being.
2.
The existence of a
Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be
contingent).
3.
The concept of a Perfect
Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.
4.
Therefore (a) a Perfect
Being is necessary.
The Reason Humans Cannot Imagine One Greater
than God
Every major culture in ancient times practiced
polytheism, and each of these gods were created in some way; they were given an
image. This was the best mankind could imagine. Psychologists who believe in
empirically oriented cognitive truth support Aristotle’s belief being humans
cannot imagine more than what they have experienced and observed, or a combination
of these. [21] A human does not need to believe in the
eternal triune all powerful God to survive according to naturalism, so why
would any culture imagine such a God? Thousands of years ago the Jewish people
came onto the scene believing there is one God with no beginning and no end, and
the world was presented with an idea of God that proved to be the greatest
being one could understand as existing. Humbly consider the thought humanity is
incapable of imagining a single eternal triune God with supreme power, one with
no image conceivable by man, and with no beginning or end. Consider how the
very idea of the God Anselm is referring to in his argument is only conceivable
today because in the distant past He made Himself known through divine
revelation. Now, the skeptic should reconsider Anselm’s point when he wrote,
“…there is no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought
exists both in the understanding and in reality.”[22] The reason humans
comprehend the concept of the Judeo-Christian God as being the greatest being
is because humans are incapable of imagining such a God. The characters in a
novel could never know they are in a novel unless somehow the author was able
to reveal himself to them. Only then could the characters recognize this author
was somehow able to give life and understanding to those He imagined into
being. Naturally the characters minds could not imagine one greater than the
one who gave life to what He spoke into being. Hence why Anselm states, “This being
exists so truly that it cannot be thought not to exist.”[23] But, further proof on this
theory needs to be offered, and Immanuel Kant’s objection to the argument
inspires more reason to believe God could not be known unless He made Himself
known.
Kant presented one of the more popular
arguments against the Ontological Argument, so his reasons for rejecting the
argument must be considered. Firstly, Kant believed the argument does not stand
because one cannot prove the existence of God and presupposing His existence
does not prove His existence.[24] However, one cannot argue the existence of
God is unlikely considering the very existence of the universe is unlikely.
Anselm would argue the difference between the universe and God is the universe
does not necessarily need to exist.[25] Where one can conceive of the universe not
existing, in knowing the universe needed a beginning to exist one cannot
conceive of the source responsible for the universe being nonexistent. The
first cause must be the God Anselm seeks to prove in his argument, a being
outside of space and time would mean a timeless and self-existent being,
maximally powerful to cause the Big Bang, and thus greatly intelligent.[26] For since the universe exists there is good
reason to believe an intelligent source is the cause, for the universe could
not have created itself. At the time Kant wrote his response to the ontological
argument he could not have known so much would later be discovered supporting
the existence of God. He argued since one cannot prove God’s existence like one
can prove a triangle has three sides then no one must conclude God exists.[27] Alvin Plantinga does well to sum up Kant’s
point being one cannot “…define things into existence…”[28] Kant is obviously correct, however, humans do
not define who God is. Without a knowledge of God all of existence could only
be understood as temporary, and unnecessary. Creatures live and then they die,
civilizations rise and then they fall. Nothing lasts forever, and nothing is
perfect, hence why the gods of mythology were all flawed and relatable to
humans. There is no reason for someone to imagine the one true God into being
for the God of the Bible is distinct from all He created.
Without
knowledge of God all the human mind would be able to comprehend about existence
would be either something exists, or does not exist, but nothing must exist. Anselm viewed faith in God
as being necessary before one could begin to observe and understand all the
rational reasons to believe.[29] So,
to counter his argument one must start by believing there is no meaning to
life, however if there is no meaning to life then people would not live as if
there is meaning to life. A more important predicate Kant may ignore is what
predicates existence of the universe. What must be for all to exist? For
nothing existing in creation must exist. The source which caused all existence
to come into being is the only entity which must exist.
Humans
may say they do not know what the first cause is, but this first cause must
exist for anything else to exist.[30] Because people can think and question this
means they know they are free, but not free to comprehend what is beyond space
and time. In science one can only observe what can be observed, and the first cause
cannot be observed. The human mind is the most powerful out of all creation,
and only the human can create something new, but what they create will always
fall short from being greater than what was created by the first cause. So, the
only reason humans are even capable of believing in what Plantinga refers to as
a “maximal concept” is because this is more than a concept.[31]
If
there is a “maximal concept” beyond space and time responsible for creation
humans would have no reason to believe in this. Humans cannot comprehend the
existence of anything beyond what they can observe or imagine. Humans can
imagine gods that are immortal characters with human characteristics, or
imagine aliens with humanoid or animal like characteristics, but cannot imagine
into being something beyond a combination of what they have observed. Someone may
refer to Q from Star Trek for example, an imagined character who had God like
qualities, however since the concept of God was known before Star Trek, then
clearly Q was inspired by the God of the Bible. Thus, the point is the same,
the ontological argument would not even be possible unless the maximal first
cause was revealed to humanity in some way at some point in recorded history. A
maximal concept beyond the universe could not reveal itself to those bound by
space and time, because a concept cannot make itself known unless the concept
lives. Thus, to reaffirm what was argued earlier the first cause being of
supreme intelligence is necessary because humans could not believe in God
unless He made Himself known.
The
Triune God with no beginning or end was firstly recorded in the biblical
account, thus the Christian places their faith in a God beyond space and time,
because they place their faith in the Biblical account which records the times
God revealed Himself. Now one may argue the book of Romans 1:20 verifies how
God should be recognized clearly by “what has been made.” However,
Paul wrote in the past tense where the next verse states, “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as
God nor gave thanks to Him…” (v. 21). After the truth of God was exchanged for
a lie, as people chose to worship the creation instead of the Creator,
following generations would forget the true God. In verse 28 Paul wrote, “…they
did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God…” thus God “…gave them
over to a depraved mind…” (v. 28). So, surely Romans 1:20 truly states the
evidence of God can be seen in what He made, however if not for the revelation
of God documented in the Bible this evidence would go unnoticed as being for
the one true God. Thus, the ontological argument still proves more relevant
when recognizing the human mind could not make up the triune eternal God of the
Bible. Therefore, God revealed Himself to Abraham and then later to Moses, and
if these incidents were not documented then after generations passed without
divine revelation humanity would once again forget about the existence of God,
for the depraved mind cannot comprehend God’s existence apart from divine
revelation. Furthermore, one may argue how could the generations following the
flood be without excuse if they had lost the knowledge of God and were unable
to recognize the evidence for God in creation? This is like asking why God
would eternally punish someone who never had the opportunity to hear about
Jesus Christ. The sins of the fathers who exchanged the truth of God for a lie
were passed onto their children, and all people are held accountable for
rejecting God which is why the gospel message exists (Deut. 5:9; Rom. 3:23).
Those born into darkness cannot receive the light unless the light shines on
them, and while being in the darkness fellowship with the light is impossible.
Any mono-theistic belief systems following the biblical text have only stolen
from the original source. Evidence discovered supporting the God of the Bible
like in physics or biology is of value, but the ontological argument would be
incomprehensible if not for divine revelation. If there was no Biblical account
recorded there would be no knowledge of God’s existence, because unless He had
revealed Himself God could not be known, thus, the predicate to Anselm’s
argument is sound.
Imagining
a God with such great compassion He would be willing to suffer and die for
millions is beyond human capacity. Psychologist Paul Slovic termed the phrase psychic numbing, which psychologists
recognize as true with regards to humans limited ability to show compassion.[32] This
explains why humans do not react with horror when hearing about the genocide of
Christians in the Middle East, or when hearing about the grooming gangs in
Europe. When the individual suffers the loss of a single friend or family
member their capacity for compassion is evident, and when hearing of someone
who has suffered similar loss one can be overwhelmed with grief. Humans can
understand compassion for losing an individual, or multiple members of friends
and family, or even when hearing a story of a parent who lost a child for
example. When hearing of atrocities involving human suffering on a massive
scale from outside one’s personal life, a person grows more numb as the number
of those suffering increases.[33] Thus, because of psychic numbing Christ could
not have been imagined by humans, for He showed compassion when He died for His enemies, an act contrary to human nature. Because of the
observed limits of human compassion, the Christian God who is defined as Love
could not be imagined. There is no other figure like Christ in all of history,
no greater moral teacher to ever arise, thus His love displayed on the cross is
further evidence for the fact being the only reason humans know of God is
because He made Himself known.
Conclusion
If
not for God revealing Himself the ontological argument would never have
existed. The fact this argument exists is evidence for God’s existence, for
humans could never imagine such a concept as the Judeo-Christian God. Because
of the pride of man so many have missed this great truth; humanity is incapable
of imagining a concept of perfection, because this is beyond what can be
observed. The only logical conclusion is God revealed Himself, hence why the
human mind cannot imagine one greater than the one who gave life to His
creation.
Bibliography
Anselm of Canturbury. Proslogion with the
Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm. Cambridge, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001.
https://books.google.com/books?id=IfedaPdLbwIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Anselm's+Proslogion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil3tiIsM_eAhVMmuAKHf5tA5MQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Anselm's%20Proslogion&f=false
Aristotle. De Anima iii 3,
429a4–7, De Memoria 1, 450a22–25. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.3.iii.html.
Beckwith, Francis J. To Everyone
an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL.
InterVarsity Press, 2009. Accessed November 24, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Davis, Stephen T. God, Reason
and Theistic Proofs. Edinburgh, Great Britain: Edinburgh University Press,
1997. ISBN 978-0-7486-0799-0.
Cardinal Dulles, Avery. A
History of Apologetics. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999.
Dombrowski, A. Daniel. Rethinking
the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response. Cambridge, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Edgar, William, and Oliphint, K. Scott. Christian Apologetics Past and Present. Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
2009.
Eder, Gunther and Ramharter, Esther. “Formal
reconstructions of St. Anselm’s ontological argument.” Springer
Science+Business Media Dordrecht, Spring 2015. https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11229-015-0682-8.pdf
Geisler, L. Norman, and Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL. Crossway
Books, 2004.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian
Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: IL.
InterVarsity Press, 2011.
Nagasawa, Yujin. 2010. “The Ontological Argument and the Devil. The
Philosophical Quarterly.” (1950-) 60 (238): 72-91.
Oppenheimer, Paul, and Zalta, N. Edward. (2011). "A
Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument." Australasian
Journal of Philosophy. 89 (2): 333–349. doi:10.1080/00048401003674482.)
Plantinga, Alvin. "Kant's Objection to the Ontological
Argument." The Journal of Philosophy 63, no. 19 (1966): 537-46.
doi:10.2307/2024217.
Proops, Ian. 2015. “Kant on the ontological argument.” Noûs 49 (1):
1-27.
Rowe, William L. "Alvin Plantinga on the Ontological
Argument." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65, no. 2 (04,
2009): 87-92. http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/220621356?accountid=12085.
Smith, A. D.. Anselm's Other
Argument. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. Accessed December 13,
2018. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[1]
William
Edgar and Scott Oliphint, Christian
Apologetics Past and Present, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 366-367.
[2]
Ibid., 366-368.
[3]
Unless otherwise noted,
all biblical passages referenced are in the New
International Version (Indianapolis, IN: Zondervan, 1990).
[4]
Douglas
Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith,
(Downers Grove: IL. InterVarsity Press, 2011), 188.
[5] Edgar
and Oliphint, Christian Apologetics Past
and Present, 382
[6] Edgar and Oliphint, Christian Apologetics Past and Present, 382-383.
[7]
Ibid., 387-388.
[8]
Anselm
of Canturbury, Proslogion with the
Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm (Cambridge, IN: Hackett Publishing Company,
2001), 8.
[9]
Yujin Nagasawa, “The Ontological Argument and
the Devil,” (The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 238, 2010), 73.
[10]
Stephen
T. Davis, “God, Reason and Theistic Proofs,” (Edinburgh University Press, 1997),
27–28. ISBN 978-0-7486-0799-0.
[11]
Paul
Oppenheimer and Edward N. Zalta, "A
Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument," Australasian
Journal of Philosophy. 89 (2), 2011), 347.
[12]
Oppenheimer, and Zalta,
"A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological
Argument," 347-349.
[13]
Daniel A. Dombrowski, Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 85.
[14]
Dombrowski,
Rethinking the Ontological Argument, 36.
[15]
Gunther Eder and Esther
Ramharter, “Formal reconstructions of St. Anselm’s ontological argument,” (Springer
Science+Business Media Dordrecht, Spring 2015), 30.
[16] Dombrowski, Rethinking the Ontological Argument, 48-49.
[17]
Francis
J. Beckwith, To Everyone an Answer: A
Case for the Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2004), 127.
[18]
William L. Rowe,
"Alvin Plantinga on the Ontological Argument," International Journal
for Philosophy of Religion 65, no. 2 (04, 2009), 89.
[19]
Alvin Plantinga, "A Valid Ontological Argument?" The
Philosophical Review 70, no. 1 (1961), 94.
[20]
Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case
for Biblical Faith, (Downers Grove: IL. InterVarsity Press, 2011), 196.
[21]
Aristotle, De Anima iii 3,
429a4–7, De Memoria 1, 450a22–25.
[24] Ian
Proops, “Kant on the ontological argument” (Noûs 49 (1) 2015), 3.
[25]
Anselm,
Proslogion with the Replies of Gaunilo
and Anselm, 9.
[26]
Norman L. Geisler and
Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to
be an Atheist, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 93.
[27]
Proops, “Kant on the ontological argument,” 15.
[28]
Alvin Plantinga, "Kant's Objection to the Ontological Argument," The
Journal of Philosophy 63, no. 19 (1966), 545.
[29] Cardinal Avery Dulles, A
History of Apologetics (Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 99.
[30]
A. D. Smith, Anselm's Other Argument (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2014), 62.
[31]
Plantinga., “A Valid Ontological Argument,” 543.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/leo-brunk/analyzing-the-ontological-argument-who-came-up-with-god/10155711708887032/
0 comments:
Post a Comment