Arguments for and Against the Existence of God

An Ontological Argument for the Existence of God 1. Introduction As the epigraph makes clear, one of the irrefutable facts about the history of humankind has been the existence of various types of religions since time immemorial. Indeed, ancient peoples looked at the sky and the world around them in wonder, and instinctively sought to identify the source of all of this miraculous creation. It is not surprising, then, that the belief in the existence of God can said to be as old as humankind itself.

The purpose of this study is to provide a critical analysis of the relevant literature concerning the historic and contemporary ontological argument for the existence of God, and to explicate these findings into a coherent analysis that can serve as a foundation for further research. 2. Historical ontological arguments for the existence of God In this regard, one authority reports that, “One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument.

While there are several different versions of the argument, all purport to show that it is self-contradictory to deny that there exists a greatest possible being. Thus, on this general line of argument, it is a necessary truth that such a being exists; and this being is the God of traditional Western theism.”[footnoteRef:2] From an ontological perspective, then, the existence of God is an a priori reality even when mere humans fail to cognitively grasp and consciously concede this reality.

Consequently, the arguments in support of the existence of the “God of traditional Western theism” all stem from this a priori assumption, making the analysis somewhat circular and therefore confounding for many biblical scholars.[footnoteRef:3] [2: Kenneth E. Himma (2018) “Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [online] available: https://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/.] [3: Joseph H.

Pearson, “The Cambridge Companion to Anselm/Anselm of Canterbury and His Theological Inheritance/Anselm of Canterbury: The Beauty of Theology.” Anglican Theological Review 88 (1, Winter 2006), 107.] While the seemingly legitimate argument can be made that the existence of God can be proven by “just looking around,” theologians and laypersons alike are vitally interested in delving further into the issue in ways that can provide more concrete evidence to support this view.

As Jesus made clear in Luke 4:12, though, “It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Nevertheless, this admonition has not stopped countless individuals from seeking some type of proof positive that they can point to in order to reassure themselves and their fellow humans that there is indeed a “greatest being” in the universe who is responsible for all of the creation around them.

One of the early proponents of the ontological argument in support of the existence of God was Saint Anselm of Canterbury.[footnoteRef:4] According to Anselm’s perspective written in the early 12th century, the mysteries that abound in the world are sufficient evidence to confirm the existence of God and it would be foolhardy to argue otherwise. For example, one authority notes that, “St.

Anselm’s version of the ontological argument appears in his Proslogium, Chapter II, and is the definitive statement of the argument.”[footnoteRef:5] For example, in Chapter II of his Proslogium, Anselm writes: “Truly there is a God, although the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,”[footnoteRef:6] and then goes on to explain why in detail.

As a relevant analogy, Anselm argues that, “When a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it.

But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding, and he understands that it exists, because he has made it.”[footnoteRef:7] [4: Phillip Luke Sinitiere, “The Medieval Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Medieval Period.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46 (1, March 2003), 152.] [5: “St Anselm’s Ontological Argument” (2018) Philosophy of Religion. [online] available: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/] [6: Sidney N. Deane (1903), Works of St.

Anselm [online] available: sacred-texts.com.] [7: Deane (1903).] In sum, Anselm maintains that humanity depends on experiential sources to confirm or refute abstract conceptualizations, including most especially the fundamental hypothesis concerning the existence or nonexistence of God. This reliance on experience, however, flies in the face of what Anselm contends is the overarching reality of God’s existence.

In this regard, one biblical authority points out that Anselm’s argument assumes “the form of a reductio ad absurdum, which means that it takes a hypothesis, shows that it has absurd or otherwise unacceptable implications, and so concludes that the hypothesis is false. In the case of Anselm’s ontological argument, the hypothesis treated in this way is the hypothesis that God does not exist.

Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as ‘that than which no greater can be conceived.’ It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict.”[footnoteRef:8] [8: “St Anselm’s Ontological Argument” (2018).] In truth, the hypothesis that God does not exist would appear on its face to be as problematic to confirm or refute as its corollary, but here again this profound constraints has not stopped humanity from making the attempt.

Speculations and conjectures have always abounded concerning problem statements such as whether if there is a God, can he create a boulder so large that even he cannot move it, and in some ways this same reasoning applies to the ontological argument in support of the existence of God. For instance, Anselm asserts that: If God is that than which no greater can be conceived, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God.

If God does not exist, though, then something can be imagined that is greater than God, namely a God that does exist. Obviously this is impossible.

Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.[footnoteRef:9] [9: “St Anselm’s Ontological Argument” (2018).] In sharp contrast to the modern scientific method whereby a hypothesis is first propounded, methods are formulated to test that hypothesis and a conclusion is drawn from the resulting empirical observations and findings, the ontological argumentative approach begins with a hypothesis that cannot be logically refuted and arguments to the contrary are either misinformed, ill-intentioned or ignorant of the reality of God’s existence and are therefore erroneous.

This apparently unassailable position, of course, begs the attempt to refute it but the ontological arguments in support of the existence of God do not brook refutation. The rationale in support of this irrefutable position concerning the existence of God is based squarely on the aforementioned “can God make a boulder” argument: “The hypothesis that God does not exist thus seems to give rise to a logical absurdity: that there both is and is not something that can be imagined that is greater than God.

There is, because it’s possible to imagine a God that does exist. There isn‘t, because it’s impossible to imagine something greater than the greatest thing imaginable.”[footnoteRef:10] In other words, like young children arguing over what number is the largest (“Infinity plus one”), the arguments against the existence of God pale when compared to his truly ubiquitous and omnipotent nature which preclude superlative comparisons.

In this regard, the point is also made by Anselm’s view that, “A hypothesis that gives rise to a logical absurdity, though, must be false. The hypothesis that God does not exist, therefore, is false; God exists.” [footnoteRef:11] [10: “St Anselm’s Ontological Argument” (2018).] [11: “St Anselm’s Ontological Argument” (2018).] A form of Anselm’s ontological argument in support of the existence of God is summarized below. (1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.

(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined. Therefore: (3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined. (4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.

Therefore: (5) God exists.[footnoteRef:12] [12: “St Anselm’s Ontological Argument” (2018).] Based on the argument’s first premise (1), the conceptualization of God propounded by Anselm (2) should be regarded as an obvious truth based on humanity’s inability to conceptualize any entity greater (3).

As a result, Anselm’s final premise (4) naturally follows from this line of reasoning.[footnoteRef:13] [13: “St Anselm’s Ontological Argument” (2018).] During the 17th century, René Descartes took up a similar argument in support of the existence of God in his Fifth Meditation wherein he “claims to provide a proof demonstrating the existence of God from the idea of a supremely perfect being [arguing] that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees.[footnoteRef:14] When Descartes argued, Cogito ergo sum [“I think therefore I am”], he was making essentially the same point as his defense of the ontological arguments in support of the existence of God, Like the somewhat circular reasoning advanced by Saint Anselm, Descartes’ argument likewise depends on some convoluted mental gymnastics to fully comprehend, but the end result of all such logical reasoning is the same.

As Descartes concluded, “Since we do conceive a supremely perfect being — we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being — we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists.”[footnoteRef:15] [14: Jurgen Braungardt (2018) “Ontological arguments for the Existence of God” [online] available: http://braungardt.trialectics.com/theology-index/problems/ontological-arguments/] [15: Braungardt (2018).] Notwithstanding the persuasive and conclusive nature of the argument advanced by Descartes and like-minded theologians concerning the ontological arguments in support of the existence of God, the nebulosity of the underlying concepts has precluded their universal acceptance.

Nevertheless, proponents of the ontological arguments in support of the existence of God turn to the same logical processes that Saint Anselm drew on to support his beliefs. For instance, according to Flage, “Anyone who reads the Meditations will grant that clear and distinct ideas are capable of representing things distinct from themselves, that they typically represent the essences of kinds of things, and that the ideas of essences divide things in the world into kinds.

That clear and distinct ideas are representative or capable of representing is implied by his paradigmatic examples: the ideas of the self [and] God.”[footnoteRef:16] [16: Daniel E.

Flage, “Descartes and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body.” The Review of Metaphysics 68 (1, September 2014), 93.] In the millennium that has passed since Saint Anselm first formulated his classic ontological argument in support of the existence of God, there has been relentless scholarship focused on developing a better understanding of these logical arguments and developing theses in support or against them and these are discussed further below. 3.

Contemporary ontological arguments for the existence of God In 1966, Time magazine’s editor, John Elson, published what has since become is most controversial article by far when its cover asked, “Is God Dead?” The debate that raged over this question, though, made it clear that in order for God to die (in terms humans could understand), he would first have been required to exist.

Therefore, even this highly controversial article lends support to the ontological argument in support of the existence of God, but the debate has not stopped there of course.

During the early half of the 20th century, philosophers such as Robin George Collingwood examined Saint Anselm’s ontological arguments in support of the existence of God to develop a better understanding of the rationale and its relevance for modern humanity.[footnoteRef:17] In this regard, according to Lobont, Collingwood “writes that philosophy must renounce the judging of truth-claims regarding the general nature of reality, and aim to uncover the actual beliefs about reality held by men.”[footnoteRef:18] [17: Florin Lobont, “Ontological Proof and the Critique of Religious Experience.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 9 (2, Winter 2010), 158.] [18: Lobont (2010), 158.] In Collingwood’s “An Essay on Metaphysics” (1940), the point is made that, "[W]hat [Anselm] proves is not that because our idea of God is an idea of id quo maius cogitari nequit [“that is greater can”], therefore God exists, but that because our idea of God is an idea of id quo maius cogitari nequit, we stand committed to belief in God's existence."[footnoteRef:19] This observation reflects the aforementioned notion that God exists whether mere humans are capable of grasping the reality or not, and that his existence does not depend on this ability but is rather separate and distinct from it.

For example, Lubont adds that, “In Collingwood's opinion, Anselm did not necessarily mean that God exists independently of the believer's mind, but rather that for the Christian orthodox believer, God is conceived as existing not only as an idea pertaining to his mind, but also independently of it.”[footnoteRef:20] [19: Lobont (2010), 159.] [20: Lobont (2010), 159.] Given the centrality and importance of God’s existence for all humankind, it is reasonable to posit that to the extent that humans make the effort to fully comprehend the ontological arguments in support of the existence of God will likely be the extent to which humanity receives the full blessings that God intends.

For example, if a rich but otherwise unknown uncle dies and leaves a family an enormous amount of money, it matters not if they were close to the uncle or not or whether they have any love or affection for him, but it does matter that they acknowledge he existed in order for them to legally inherit his bequest.

This point is also made by Lebont who concludes, “According to Collingwood, the examination of the ontological proof must help us to clarify the nature of the most fundamental religious beliefs held by men. And that is why, he wrote; ‘[the analysis of] the ontological proof is of immediate and overwhelming importance...[and] the neglect of it is the cause of all that is most unsound and unphilosophical-as well as irreligious-in .. modern theories of religion.’"[footnoteRef:21] [21: R. G.

Collingwood, "Lectures on the Ontological Proof of the Existence of God. Written December 1919 for delivery Hilary Term 1920," Department of Western Manuscripts, Bodleian Library, Oxford, 1.] As the search for extraterrestrial intelligence intensifies today, it is becoming increasingly apparent that modern humankind is desperate to find out the truth about their place in the universe and the reality of God’s existence.

Even the Hubble telescope, though, has failed to locate God in his heavens but scientific researchers have found an infinite number of other worlds where life could emerge and thrive. Scarcely a day goes by that yet another headline does not trumpet the identification of yet other planets that are capable of sustaining life as humans know it, and the clamor for proof positive of life elsewhere in the universe grows concomitantly.

Against this backdrop, the ontological arguments in support of the existence of God are both reinforced in some ways and diminished in others. On the one hand, when modern humans gaze on the edges of the observable universe, they cannot but help but be humbled in the process. After all, infinity is a profoundly difficult concept to grasp, and even trying can be a disturbing experience that can make people uncomfortable and fearful.

Moreover, the a priori arguments in support of God’s existence simply fail to measure up to the modern standards required for scientific evidence of the reality of anything. On the other hand, though, the same observations about the immensity of the universe lend support to the existence of a “greatest being,” especially given the inability of researchers to identify any other place in the entire universe that provides the unique set of circumstances that has allowed humankind to survive and even prosper.

Assuming the scientific community is correct and life does in fact exist elsewhere in the universe, this finding would not refute the ontological arguments in support of the existence of God but would rather serve to confirm them. After all, nothing in the Scriptures precludes God’s creating intelligent beings on other worlds, only that they would also be created in his own image. Indeed, it is simplistic to assert that God omniscience would be limited to one tiny world in a vast universe full of limitless possibilities.

Moreover, even the best minds in the scientific community are unable to conceptualize the beginnings of the universe beyond the spurious “Big Bang” theory which claims that all of the physical matter that comprises the known universe arose from a single, subatomic particle and this is when time began.

These assertions, however, do not take into account what may exist beyond the limits of the observation universe nor do they account for what existed prior to the “Big Bang.” Therefore, the same types of a priori assumptions that are used to support the ontological arguments in support of the existence of God have been used to refute them. In this regard, Alekseyev presents the theistic arguments against the prevailing conceptualizations of quantum physics that characterize scientific research today: 1.

Everything that exists has a cause(s) or a reason(s); 2. Natural causes are temporally prior to their effects; 3. So nothing is a natural cause of itself; 4. There is either a finite (F) succession of natural events or an infinite (I) succession; 5. If (F), the first natural event would itself require a cause or a reason; 6. This cause cannot itself be natural by hypothesis (given 2 and 3); 7. So if nature is finite it has a reason that is supernatural (5, 6); 8.

If (I), the succession taken as a whole requires a cause or a reason; 9. There cannot be a natural cause external to the succession (by hypothesis also); 10. No natural event within the succession explains the whole; 11. The whole of natural succession is not self-explanatory; 12. Ex nibilo nibil fit (“Nothing comes from nothing”); 13. Invoking chance does not help here; 14. So nature has a supernatural cause; 15.

This cause (Deity) exists necessarily, since supposing otherwise invokes contradiction.[footnoteRef:22] [22: Yaroslav Alekseyev, “Is the Universe Acausal, and Does God Exist?” Skeptic 10 (3, Fall 2003), 23.] This more detailed serial argument in support of the ontological arguments for the existence of God is simply an elaboration on Saint Anselm’s original arguments, but it does underscore the fundamental assumptions that are needed to view them as valid and legitimate.

The only factor left out of the arguments in support of and against the existence of God is the final equation that provides the proof positive that humankind has searched for since antiquity. Indeed, it would seem that anything short of the Second Coming will not suffice to convince doubters of the validity of the ontological arguments in support of the existence of God and true believers do not require this level of concrete evidence since their faith sustains them in this regard.

The issue of free will, of course, remains a major sticking point for proponents of the ontological arguments in support of the existence of a benevolent Creator. What good is a God, after all, that allows such evil to run rampant in the world, harming even the most innocent among humankind? From this contemporary perspective, the a priori assumptions that God exists are therefore diminished because many people cannot fully comprehend the mysterious working of an omnipotent being that allows terrible things to happen to good people.

For instance, in his essay, “God 12,000, the Faith of a Rebeliver,” Pasquerella makes the point that people he terms “bright believers” claim to believe in God as.