Paul Clark

WHAT IS THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT?

It is not one, but a family of arguments that seek to prove God’s existence through reason alone, without recourse to evidence from the outside world.

In 1078, the earliest, and perhaps the most subtle[i] version was suggested by Anselm of Aosta, a future Archbishop of Canterbury:

1. God can be defined as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. If such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived.
3. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e. God—exists.[ii]

To the modern lay mind, this may look like a word salad. Indeed, Richard Dawkins dismisses it as “infantile”,[iii] but philosophers don’t. Even those who consider the ontological argument unconvincing, find it disconcerting because it is difficult to put their finger on exactly what is wrong with it.[iv]

WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

From a very old argument put forward by the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides in the 5^th century BCE. He said that if you can think of something clearly and distinctly, it must exist.

Plato took this idea to its ultimate conclusion with his theory of forms. He argued that because the world we live in is constantly changing, it is unreliable.[v] But behind this world is another world, which is permanent and unchanging: the world of forms. To give an example, in the world of forms, there is a perfect circle. If I attempt to draw a circle, my attempt will inevitably be imperfect and flawed, and I am only able to make the attempt because I remember the perfect circle in the world of forms. The fact that we can conceive of a circle means that this perfect circle must exist.

The same is true of anything we can conceive: from abstract concepts such as truth and beauty to concrete objects like a tree, house, man, woman or horse. The world we see is like shadows on the wall of a cave. Reality (the world of forms) is that which throws the shadows.

Plato believed that our souls inhabited this world of forms before we were born, and as we grow up and learn, we are not in fact learning but remembering the forms we encountered there.

PLATO’S LEGACY

Aristotle rejected Plato’s theory of forms, but its influence reaches down to the present day. Neurologists who argue that our view of reality is a controlled hallucination draw on Plato’s metaphor of shadows in the cave.[vi] For physics Nobel laureate Sir Roger Penrose, Plato’s abstract world of forms is not a metaphor but the blueprint of mathematical reality.[vii]

In the 5^th century, Augustine of Hippo helped to integrate Neo-Platonist ideas into Christianity, and this had a profound influence on Anselm, the originator of the ontological argument.

A PHILOSOPHICAL CONTROVERSY

In the 13^th century, Thomas Aquinas gave what many saw as a definitive rebuttal of the ontological argument. He said the human mind isn’t capable of a proper concept of God, and therefore any proof dependent on our concept of God is invalid.

But 400 years later, it re-emerged. For Descartes, “I think therefore I am” was true because he could clearly perceive his existence. From this, he reasoned that anything he could clearly perceive must exist (see Parmenides, above). Since he felt he could clearly perceive God’s existence, God must exist.

Spinoza skirted around the ontological argument without quite diving in. The key for him was existence itself: the fact that there is something rather than nothing proves God exists. Indeed, for Spinoza, existence itself is God.[viii]

Leibniz, writing in the 18^th century, thought Descartes’ ontological argument was incomplete. In his eyes, it would only be valid if the concept of a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God was coherent. But since he considered it coherent, Leibniz endorsed the ontological argument.[ix]

David Hume rejected it. He said the question of whether something exists is a question about facts, and such questions cannot be answered by reason alone but must be checked against external reality.[x]

For Immanuel Kant, any argument based on the property of existence is flawed. If you say God exists, you aren’t saying that there is a God and he possesses the property of existence. If that were so, when someone says God doesn’t exist, they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the property of existence, which would be absurd.[xi]

The 19^th century saw Hegel give his backing to the ontological argument without really defining what he was backing, and the 20^th century saw Bertrand Russell accept and then reject it. Later, Alvin Plantinga proposed a “modal” version and Kurt Gödel, one of the greatest mathematicians and logicians of his day, developed a version based on a long list of axioms and theorems, though this wasn’t published until after his death.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “PROVE” THAT GOD EXISTS?

In his article in the Stamford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Graham Oppy suggests that the ontological argument can only be said to prove the existence of God if, when presented with it, any reasonable atheist has to admit they are wrong and God does indeed exist. If, however, the atheist can offer a reasonable objection, then the ontological argument cannot be called a proof.[xii]

The bar for proof is very high in philosophy, which tends to deal with questions rather than answers.

DIFFERENT APPROACHES

Oppy discusses seven main approaches to the ontological argument and asks whether an atheist can reasonably object to them. It doesn’t matter whether the atheist is correct, only whether their objection is reasonable.[xiii] After summarising Oppy’s arguments below, I will briefly examine Gödel’s approach.

A Definitional Approach

1. God is a being which has every perfection.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Hence God exists.

Oppy says the atheist can accept 1 and 2 as true but uninteresting and can reasonably reject the leap to 3 as an unproven assertion.

A Conceptual Approach

This is basically Anselm’s original argument.

1. I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived and which also exists.
3. But I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived must exist.

The atheist has two reasonable lines of attack. The first is that thinking about something doesn’t cause it to exist. The second echoes Thomas Aquinas – we can’t really conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. This isn’t something we can get our heads round.

A Modal Approach

Modal logic proposes three basic kinds of truth: an impossible truth, a contingent truth and a necessary truth. A truth is impossible if there are no circumstances in which is can be true. A truth is necessary if there are no circumstances in which it is not true. A contingent truth may be true under some circumstances and false under others.

Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic to propose an ontological argument along these lines:

1. It is possible that that God exists.
2. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is impossible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists.
3. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists.

The atheist can reasonably reject premise 1 and say the concept of God is incoherent and so it is impossible that God exists.

1. It is impossible that that God exists.
2. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is impossible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists.
3. Hence, God does not exist.

The two arguments cancel each other out.[xiv]

A Meinongian Approach

This is based on the work of 19^th century Austrian philosopher Alexius Meinong, though Meinong himself never applied his ideas to the ontological argument. He proposed three modes of existence: existence in time and space (a dog, a person, a mountain), existence outside time and space (a number, a theorem) and non-existence (a square circle, Santa Claus).

Those who adapt his ideas to the ontological argument say:

1. Whenever you say, “The(adjective X) (noun phrase Y) is (adjective X)” you are expressing a truth.
2. Hence the sentence “The existent perfect being is existent” expresses a truth.
3. Hence, the existent perfect being is existent. Hence, God exists.

The atheist, however, can reasonably refuse to include God in either category of existence, relegating him to non-existence. Hence this doesn’t work as a proof.

An Experiential Approach

1. The word “God” has a meaning that is revealed in religious experience.
2. The word “God” has a meaning only if God exists.
3. Hence, God exists.

The atheist can reply:

1. The word “phlogiston” has a meaning that is revealed in the work of Johann Joachim Becher.
2. The word “phlogiston” has a meaning only if phlogiston exists.
3. Hence, phlogiston exists.

Unfortunately, Antoine Lavoisier disproved the existence of phlogiston in the 1770s. Clearly, then, conclusion 3 is not supported by premises 1 and 2.

A Mereological Approach

Mereology is the study of the relationship between parts and wholes. A mereological ontological argument would go like this:

1. Whenever a lot of things exist, they are part of something larger which also exists.
2. Therefore the sum of all things exists.
3. Therefore God—the sum of all things—exists.

An atheist can accept points 1 and 2 but can reasonably argue that the sum of all things isn’t God; it is the universe.

A Higher-Order Approach

1. If God exists, you can logically work out what properties he must have.
2. There will be some properties he doesn’t have.
3. God’s properties necessarily include existing and being all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good.
4. Hence, there is a necessarily existent, necessarily all-powerful, necessarily all-knowing, and necessarily perfectly good being (namely, God).

The atheist can reasonably object that if God’s existence is impossible (because an all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good being is an incoherent concept), then points 2, 3 and 4 become redundant.[xv]

Gödel’s Ontological Argument

Gödel seems to have first formulated his ontological argument in the 1940s, but he kept it to himself for the best part of 30 years, and it wasn’t published until after his death. It is a highly complex argument that posits five axioms, four theorems and three definitions. For a good summary, I would refer the reader to the video produced by Carnedes.org.[xvi]

Critics have focused on Gödel’s axioms, which include a modal approach (see above) and rely heavily on what he calls “positive properties”, though he sabotages his argument by not defining what a positive property is.

His critics make reasonable accusations of circular reasoning. They also point out that some of his axioms simply aren’t true. For example, he calls existence a positive property in all possible worlds. But this is false. In a world that is full of nothing but suffering, existence would surely be a curse.[xvii]

CONCLUSION

It is clear that atheists (and some Christians) have been able to make reasonable objections to the ontological argument no matter what approach proponents have taken. For this reason, it fails as a proof of the existence of God.

Theists can reasonably cite it as an argument for God’s existence but not as proof.

Today, most philosophers are sceptical about it, but many regard it as an intriguing puzzle which raises interesting questions that are difficult to answer. Some treat it as a good topic for students of logic to cut their teeth on, but few accept the claims that it makes for itself.[xviii]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

---

[i] In Our Time – the Ontological Argument https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b01mwx64 (accessed 06/05/2024).

[ii] Oppy, Graham, “Ontological Arguments”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/ontological-arguments/&gt;.

[iii] Dawkins, Richard: The God Delusion. Bantam Press, London, 2006 p. 80.

[iv] Magee, Bryan: The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988, p. 70.

[v] The discussion of Plato’s theory of forms is taken from Macintosh, David: Plato: A theory of Forms, Philosophy Now, May/June 1990: https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms (accessed 06/05/2024) and Matthias, Andreas: Plato’s Theory of Forms, Daily Philosophy, 13/12/2023 https://daily-philosophy.com/platos-theory-of-forms/ (accessed 06/05/2023).

[vi] Seth, Anil: Being You: A New Science of Consciousness (Kindle Edition). Faber and Faber, London, 2021, Loc 1380.

[vii] See https://geometrymatters.com/sir-roger-penrose/ (accessed 06/05/2024).

[viii] In Our Time, op cit.

[ix] Oppy, Graham, op cit.

[x] https://iep.utm.edu/hume-rel/ (accessed 07/05/2024).

[xi] http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/ontological_kant.htm (accessed 07/05/2024).

[xii] Oppy, Graham, op cit. I have simplified his argument somewhat. Proof is a very high bar in philosophy.

[xiii] The first seven discussions in the following section are based on Oppy op cit Parts 3-5. I have added, omitted and simplified.

[xiv] I have simplified both Plantinga’s and Oppy’s arguments. In Part 6, Oppy lists a number of parodies of the ontological argument which claim to prove that God doesn’t exist.

[xv] I have grossly simplified Oppy’s discussion of higher order ontological arguments in an effort to make it comprehensible.

[xvi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iZzK_opOkg (accessed 06/05/2024).

[xvii] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfXAs66GW70 (accessed 06/05/2020) for a devastating critique of Gödel’s ontological argument.

[xviii] In Our Time, op cit.