(idea) by in10se Mon Sep 09 2002 at 14:08:08

Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

Is there a God? While philosophers throughout the ages have attempted to determine the answer to this question through various means, Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury in the eleventh century, devised one of the most intriguing "proofs" of God's existence. His Ontological Argument is intriguing not only because of its claim of proving God's existence, but also because it uses the traditional properties of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, and other characteristics to do so.

Below is a simplified version of Anselm's Proslogion II:

  1. God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. {Definition of God}
     
  2. God exists in the understanding, but not in reality. {Assumption for reductio}
     
  3. Existence in both reality and the understanding is greater than existence in the understanding alone. {Premise}
     
  4. A being is possible that has all of God's properties which exists in both reality and the understanding. {Premise}
     
  5. A being is possible that is greater than God (who exists only in understanding) {From 2, 3, and 4}
     
  6. A being is possible that is greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. {From 1 and 5}
     
  7. Therefore, it is not the case that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. {From 1 – 6 and reductio ad absurdum}
     
  8. God exists in the understanding. {Premise}
     
  9. Therefore God exists in reality. {From 7 and 8}

At first glance, even this simplified interpretation of Ontological Argument seems to be a complex puzzle of words. If one takes the time to understand each line, a possibly valid argument appears. Step one simply gives a short, yet fully encompassing, definition of God. A being than which no greater can be conceived implies an all-knowing, ever present, eternal, loving, and perfect God.

Step two is Anselm's assumption for reductio. Anselm does not at all agree that God exists in the understanding, but not in reality. In fact he quotes the Bible saying, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God".

His first premise in step three states that to exist in reality is better than to exist only in understanding. This is saying that if a thing exists in one world (not our own), it has a greater existence than if it only exists in understanding (in our world). The second premise in Step four says that it is logically possible for God to exist both in reality and in understanding. From steps two through four comes step five that says that if God only exists in understanding, it is logically possible for a being that has all of God's properties to exist in reality, and would therefore be greater than God. Step 6 follows that there then exists a being greater than God, or in other words, a being who is greater than the greatest being that can be conceived.

Step six is a logical impossibility, which is where step seven comes in. From this inconsistency, using reductio ad absurdum, we know that it is not and cannot be the case that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. The final premise, step eight, asserts that God does actually exist in the understanding. How else could we even speak of God if we did not have some understanding of Him? It might also be said that if the existence of God was logically possible, then there must be some sort of understanding of Him for anyone to be able to say this. Therefore, in step nine, if God does exist in understanding, but He cannot exist in understanding only, then He must exist in reality as well.

Anselm creates a very strong argument for his case. In fact, it is a deductively valid argument meaning that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Of course if any one of the premises is not true then the conclusion does not necessarily follow. From this fact come the many objections to his argument.

We shall assume that the definition of God in step one shall not be attacked because though there are several different gods worshipped or "understood" in most cases this definition of a being which no greater can be conceived is about as general a description as our language allows.

Step two is an assumption for reductio, so is therefore in itself assumed to be false, and is above reproach. Since step eight states that God actually exists in understanding, we shall discuss that at a later time. If one argued that God does not only exist in the understanding Anselm's point would already be proven. So again, there is no argument against step two.

His first premise is the first to be disputed. One might ask why something is greater if it only exists in understanding but not in reality. Is existence an additive or great-making quality? For example – picture a square in your mind. It has four equal sides, four right angles, and meets all the requirements known for a square. Is it any less of a square than the square pictured below? (Forgive the ASCII, but you get the point.)

+-----+
|     |
|     |
+-----+

Anselm and his proponents would say that the square on the paper is the greater of the two squares, while opponents of his argument (and of the separate argument that existence is an additive quality) say that both squares hold equal value. One way that Anselm could be supported would be this logic. In the scope of all possible worlds, imagine that there exists two worlds (W1 and W2) where the man John Doe exists. If in world W1 John Doe is twice as smart as he is in world W2, then he is greater in world W1. On this same logic if there is a world W3 in which John Doe does not exist at all (i.e., he only exists in understanding), then either of the John Doe’s in W1 or W2 are greater than in world W3. If this is the case Anselm’s argument is still valid.

His second premise is also open to attack. Why should it be true that it is possible for God to exist both in understanding and reality? This is much more difficult to refute. All that can be said is, "Why is it possible for anything to be true?" Note that in this step Anselm never says that God actually does exist; only that it is a possibility. Why should it be impossible for a "greatest possible being" to logically exist?

As stated before, the argument, as a whole is deductively valid, and therefore specific disputes against steps five, six, and seven are few. This brings us to the final premise which states that God exists in the understanding. For someone to contest this, they couldn’t say, "I don’t believe God exists in understanding", they would have to say something to the effect of, "What/Who is God?" or, "What are you talking about?" To understand what is meant by saying, "God exists in understanding" implies that He actually does exist in understanding. One cannot talk about God if there was no concept of Him. God's actual existence has no bearing on the understanding of Him.

In conclusion, Anselm provides a praiseworthy proof for the existence of God with only slight problems. It might be that unconditionally proving God’s existence on paper is an impossibility. Perhaps it can only be confirmed through personal experiences, understanding, and faith.

Page category:

I like it! 1 C!