Can you define God into existence? What if the very concept of a perfect being demands its reality?
Imagine proving God’s existence without ever looking at the universe, at suffering, or even at a single miracle. What if pure thought alone could lead you to the divine?
Is the idea of God so inherently grand that simply thinking about it guarantees its existence? For centuries, one of philosophy’s most audacious arguments has dared to say yes.
In this post, we’ll explore the Ontological Argument, its core tenets, and what it means for explaining the existence of God.
Introduction: What is the Ontological Argument?
The Ontological Argument is an admittedly difficult argument to use to help prove the existence of God. It seeks to use reason alone as opposed to empirical evidence to explain why God’s existence is logically sound.
As we know, many — or even most? — atheists choose not to believe in God because they feel they don’t have enough visual evidence to believe. As if that weren’t difficult enough, try using only reason or logic to convince them otherwise.
The Ontological Argument is an a priori one, which means it deduces — or arrives at — a conclusion by presumptive reasoning from logical, self-evident propositions.
That’s a mouthful… what the heck does that mean?
What is an a priori argument?
An a priori argument is one in which certain basic principles — or premises — are assumed to be true.
One of the most popular a priori arguments is the statement, “all bachelors are unmarried.”
That seems absurdly simplistic, right? That’s because you know what a bachelor is. By definition, it’s an unmarried man. Thus, we can deduce this argument to be true based on meaning and presupposition.
How about this one: “if A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C.”
Logically, if the first item is bigger than the second, we can deduce A to be the biggest of the three items, since the third item is even smaller than the second.
In all these examples plus countless more, you can see how you don’t need to actually experience or witness anything. They are true arguments based on definitions and prior knowledge.
“It’s been raining all day, the ground must be wet,” is yet another example. Why is this logically understood to be true even if we don’t go outside to touch the grass to confirm it to be true? Because it’s based on previous and understood facts that water — which is what rain is — will make wet that which it touches.
In what ways is the Ontological Argument an a priori one?
We’ll get into specifics of the Ontological Argument in a bit. But to introduce the concept and how it ties into a priori arguments, let me briefly explain.
The Ontological Argument assumes basic truths about God without ever needing empirical evidence for His existence.
The Ontological Argument focuses on other concepts such as God being a “necessary being,” God being the “greatest possible being,” and that the concept of God — the God that Christians worship — implies perfection and an existence greater than anything the mind can conceive.
All of these concepts are ones based on reason and logic and would not require evidence to prove their point.
St. Anselm’s Original Formulation
St. Anselm of Canterbury was an Italian Benedictine monk, philosopher, and theologian who served as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Anselm is perhaps most renowned for his a priori “ontological argument” for the existence of God.
Anselm’s key concept is God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
Say what?
Nobody can conceive a being greater than God.
Anselm’s First Argument
Anselm’s First Argument has two premises and a conclusion.
Premise 1: God is a being than which none greater can be conceived.
What does this mean? It means that it is impossible to think of a being greater than God. We would be unable to even come up with something that rivals the all-powerful, all-knowing God that we worship. Because if we could, then the previous being we worshipped could no longer be the God. He just got trumped.
Premise 2: If existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone, an imagined being who exists only in our mind is not a “being than which none greater can be conceived.” A being than which none greater can be conceived must also exist in reality, where failure to do so would be a failure to be such.
Huh?
Translation: things that exist in reality are greater than things that exist in our minds alone.
How about an analogy?
Imagine you’re dying of thirst in a desert and you can visualize in your mind chugging a bottle of water. Is that greater than actually having the bottle of water in your hand and physically drinking it?
Of course not. Reality smokes imagination every time when the two scenarios are identical and pitted against each other.
Conclusion: Thus, a being than which none greater can be conceived must exist, and we call this being God.
Wait, why?
It’s because if Premise 2 is true, that reality is greater than mind alone, it is impossible for me to come up with a greater being than God. He must be the most powerful being, one incapable of being fully understood, and someone who is greater than what my mind alone can come up with.
Or, to put it another way, when Christians are confronted with the rebuttal that this God we worship is only in our minds, what would our response be?
Well, if God existed only in our minds, then a greater being, one who existed in reality, must be capable of being conceived.
Descartes’ Version of the Ontological Argument
Seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes had a similar argument to Anselm’s. His argument centered on the concept of God being a “supremely perfect being.”
Descartes’ Ontological Argument Explained
Descartes’ Ontological Argument can be broken down as follows:
Premise 1: If God exists, he must be perfect.
This first one is simple, and hard to argue conceptually. Atheists can even agree to this if posed as a hypothetical. If the God of the Bible exists, he must be perfect. Because the word “perfect” wouldn’t even exist if there were no standard of perfection. And because there is a standard, it has to be the supremely divine Creator.
Premise 2: Existence is part of perfection.
Perfection necessitates existence. Something can’t be perfect if it doesn’t even exist. If God didn’t exist, he couldn’t be perfect.
Conclusion: Therefore, God must possess the attribute of existence.
Since God is perfect (Premise 1), and perfection must contain existence (Premise 2), then God must exist.
Conclusion: God’s existence through logic and reason
The Ontological Argument remains a testament to the power and audacity of pure reason.
Through basic logic and commonly agreed upon presuppositions, the existence of God can be assumed even without empirical evidence.
Most of us have never seen a billion dollars, but we know it exists and believe it to be real.
Nobody has ever been to Venus, but believe it would be way too hot upon which to live.
None of us can prove that anyone outside ourselves has hopes and dreams, experiences fear and anxiety, or feels joy and pain. And yet we believe they do.
And on top of all that, in addition to the beliefs that apply to everyone universally, there are other things that most of us have never personally experienced but take as fact that which others have witnessed.
Whether it be being present to see historical figures and events or having first-hand visual evidence that the earth is a sphere, we understand many things to be true, those which we have no means or evidence to confirm as real.
God has left many clues to his existence around the universe and throughout time. And despite the lack of visual proof that skeptics demand in order to believe he is real, logic and reason — and the Ontological Argument — provide strong enough support to provide evidence for his existence.
