Isaiah Roman

Arguing in Circles

Here’s a fun one for you; the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

First proposed by Anslem of Canterbury, this argument is possibly the least understood, and most confusing argument for the existence of God. It is not, however, the most confused, or misstated argument. That honor would have to go to the Argument From Morality. However, despite the lack of understanding, it seems that almost every philosopher of note has had something to say about the Ontological Argument.

While such erudite philosophical arguments are usually reserved for the ivory towers of education, sometimes we encounter the concepts for these arguments in common conversations. It’s a little like haute couture. In it’s purest form it only lives on the runway, but elements of it always filter down to the racks in the stores somehow.

Two men have made very good, serious attempts at upholding the ontological argument. In fact, there seems to be no good refutation of the argument itself. Rather, one must refute the premises on which the argument is built. If you can refute those premises, then the argument becomes nonsense. In fact, the argument, without a solid underpinning, sounds like circular reasoning.

I spend a whole section in my book “Theology for the Common Man” attempting to show the fundamentals of each of the philosophical arguments for the faith. This one seems to be the most abstract when you first look at it. But, there’s a reason why every single major philosopher since Anslem has had something to say about it. It just won’t go away, because at it’s heart, there is a fundamental truth that cannot be escaped; I think, therefore God is.

To understand this argument, you have to understand modal logic, which is unfortunately a lost skill in our modern primary education system. Modal logic requires a distinction between necessary truth and contingent truth. A truth is necessary if it’s negation entails a contradiction, such as; a cat is not a mammal. In order for an animal to be a cat, it is necessarily a mammal. Therefore, stating that a cat is not a mammal is a primary contradiction. A contingent truth just happens to be so in this instance, such as; a cat has no claws. While cats generally do have claws, a cat without claws can still be a cat. The fact that this cat doesn’t have claws neither denies the fact that cats have claws, or that cats can go without claws and still be cats.

Secondly, you have to get the concept of “maximal.” From time to time I’ve written about God as “the maximal being.” So, what does that mean? When you look at the description of God, you see the “omni” properties; God is all this and all that, but what does omni mean exactly?

If a god created the universe, then what ever standard that god used to create is the standard for good. However, this only applies if that god is “all” good. What if that god was only mostly good?

If, say, Zeus created the universe then the universe is ordered according to Zeus’ sensibilities. But, that doesn’t mean that Zeus is “all” good. In fact, we know from Zeus’s definition that Zeus is, in fact, not all good. Therefore, what is good is not “all” good, or what is good is not necessarily good. What is good is only contingently good, depending on how Zeus feels at the moment. But, Zeus is not an “omni” god. Zeus isn’t even a “mono” god.

In order for a god to be an “omni” god, that god must contain the highest imaginable essence of a thing, because that thing must be necessary. God is necessarily the greatest good. Why? Because anything less would not be “omni.” This is where we have to look at Aristotle’s Law of Non-contradiction. A thing cannot be and not be in the same instance. In other words, God cannot be both good and bad. God is either “all” good or he is “all” bad. Because he created, his standard is what is good.

At the risk of being even more confusing, think of it like this; Adolph Hitler thought of himself as good. He honestly believed that the things he was doing were the right thing for the future of mankind. In his own mind, what he was doing was good. Yet, we know that he was not good. We know that he was evil. We know this because we have another standard by which we judge actions. If, however, Adolph Hitler was a god, or even the God, his standard would actually be the standard of good, because he would have been, in that instance, the determiner of what good is.

The fact that God is good does not depend upon our own ideas about what good is. Compared to God, everything else is contingent. Your good and my good are relative, but there is one good that is necessary. But, that’s another argument…

When you read the ontological argument in it’s long form, it takes into consideration these basic underlying principles; a “maximal” being is possible and if a being is maximal, it necessarily exists. That means that a maximal being is necessary for anything else to exist. Here’s the argument in long form:

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

– The Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga

A being only has maximal greatness only if it is an “omni” being within a given realm.
Unless a being is “all” good it cannot be maximal. In order to be “all” good, that being must also be all powerful and all present. Otherwise, that being’s goodness is not all encompassing, nor is it all effectual. If you can escape the good in any way, it becomes conditional.

A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
If there is a maximal being possible within one realm, that being must necessarily be maximal i all worlds. In other words, if a being is maximal in this world, it also must be maximal in every possible world, otherwise, that being is not really maximal; it’s just sort of maximal.

It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.
Here’s where the skeptic steps in. According to the first principle of naturalism, only things that can exist, do exist. The premise relies on the idea that only those things which are physical can be explained. A thing that is not physical cannot be explained and therefore, is not only not relevant, but not possible. The problem with this is that science is, right now, looking for a non-physical particle to explain the existence of particles. Stephen Hawking himself declared that gravity is the reason for the universe’s existence. In order for this to be true, gravity has to, somehow, escape the principles of particle physics and become ethereal. Gravity, according to his thesis, is the maximal force of creation. It is itself perpetual energy which is required for a multiverse, or any other eternal model of cosmology. The only difference is that Hawking and his ilk represent this eternal force not as a being, but as a force within nature. Yet, it does not and cannot deny the possibility that the force itself has being. In other words, a maximal being is possible.

The rest of the premises follow naturally, if the first three premises hold true. If a being is maximal, then that being is necessary, and therefore necessarily exists. When you first see the argument it sounds like circular reasoning. “God necessarily exists because the possibility of God exists.” Yet, when you look at it seriously, it’s not circular at all. Think of it this way; there is no word in the English language that doesn’t describe a thing that we have experienced. Even words that you think are fictional, like unicorn, or fairy, all have foundations in reality. Why then, do we need the word God?

Day to day you encounter the subject of ontology when think to yourself, how could anyone not believe in God? It seems so obvious to some of us, that to not imagine God is a strange and foreign thought. This is also one of the main reasons why each person is responsible for their response to the concept of deity. When you ask the question is there a God? the only real answer is yes. Even the ardent naturalist has a god. The next question is the important one; which god is the God?