In medieval times a monk named Anselm developed the ontological argument to prove the existence of God. Anselm uses the way God is, to demonstrate His existence. How does? If we pick up our Bible and read it, we learn that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, he has infinite and perfect love, infinite and perfect wisdom, and so on. Anselm understands that God has some qualities like knowledge, wisdom, power, love, etc..; but He doesn’t have opposite qualities for example ignorance, stupidity, weakness, hate, etc…
We can say that qualities that God has, are positive qualities; while qualities that God doesn’t have are negative qualities. Let’s consider any positive quality, for example, knowledge. We see that God has knowledge at the maximum level. God is all-knowing. This is the case for all God’s qualities. God’s power is not limited, he is all-powerful. God’s love is not limited, it is infinite, relentless. Any positive quality finds its maximal expression in God. For this reason, God will be later defined as a Maximally Great Being, by philosopher Alvin Plantinga.
Positive qualities like power, knowledge, love etc.. make those who have them greater. Negative qualities, as they are opposite to them, make those who have them lesser. The more you have a positive quality, the greater you are. Human beings have limited knowledge. A person knows something and ignores the rest. So any person has some knowledge and some ignorance. God has all the knowledge, so he doesn’t have any ignorance. Every positive quality in God is infinite, any negative quality in Him is zero. God doesn’t have any lack of knowledge in him. There are many cases in the history of great men, like Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Gandhi, etc… But no one of them is greater than God. God is a Maximally Great Being. God cannot share this title with other beings. There can only be one Maximally Great Being because unicity is a positive quality. If two beings have the same greatness they don’t have a maximal unicity in them. So one must be greater than the other.
The argument from Anselm has been improved by Plantinga, by using a reasoning system named ‘modal logic’. For this reason that is also named ‘modal ontological argument’. But what is Modal logic?
Modal logic works with possible worlds. A possible world is a world we can imagine in our minds. In a possible world, we are imagining different situations. For example: let’s say that in the real world, I’m wearing a white shirt. We can imagine a world where I’m wearing a black shirt. It’s like saying “If I’d wear a black shirt …”. In the real world, unicorns don’t exist, but we can think of a possible world in which unicorns exist. There is only one rule: logic must be valid in it. A world is possible only if there are no contradictions in it. For example, a world in which a square has three sides is impossible. So as a world with married bachelors in it. A possible world cannot contain logical absurdity. A world in which a logical contradiction exists is impossible.
According to modal logic, when I imagine a world containing nonsense: I’m imagining an impossible world. When I’m thinking of a unicorn, or of a black shirt, I am thinking of an entity. Each entity has a definition. For example, a unicorn is a horse with a horn on the head, and a shirt is a piece of clothing. Those entities don’t have any logical problems in them. Let’s consider instead a married bachelor. A married bachelor is defined as a man who is married and not married at the same time. The definition of a married bachelor contains logical problems. In fact, according to the law of non-contradiction, a statement is true or false, but cannot be both. So the statement “a married bachelor is married” is true and false at the same time. This is a logical absurdity and is impossible in modal logic. An entity that comes with logical problems is inconsistent and impossible. So the unicorn is a possible entity, while the married bachelor is an impossible entity. A possible world can contain a possible entity, but not an impossible entity. When we spot an impossible entity in a possible world, that world is impossible.
A unicorn exists in a possible world, but not in ours. Let’s consider an apple. An apple is an entity that exists in our world. But we can think of a world in which apples don’t exist. The idea of the apple not existing in that world doesn’t create any logical problem in that world. When this happens to an entity, that entity is ‘contingent’. A contingent entity is something that can possibly exist, but its existence is not required for the world to work. We say, in this case, that an entity possibly exists. A unicorn possibly exists. Is possible that a unicorn exists. This doesn’t mean that the unicorn has any chance to exist in this world, but it can exist in a possible world we can think of.
Let’s consider any number, for example, number five. Number five must exist in every possible world. If we think of a world without the number five, that world is impossible. For example in that world the sentence ‘five plus one equals six’ is nonsense. When an entity must exist in every possible world we say that it is ‘necessary’. Numbers are necessary entities. Numbers exist in all possible worlds.
The idea of a Maximally Great Being has no inconsistencies. We can think of an entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, etc … There are no logical contradictions in it. So, God is the Maximally Great Being. Therefore God possibly exists. Is possible that God exists.
We can also say it this way: if a Maximally Great Being possibly exists, then a Maximally Great Being necessarily exists.
This means that if a Maximally Great Being exists in a possible world, He must exist in all possible worlds.
This is a very unique consequence and depends only on the definition we have given of a Maximally Great Being. For example, saying: “a unicorn possibly exists” means that a unicorn exists only in some possible worlds. But we cannot say that unicorns exist in all possible worlds, because they don’t exist in this world. So we cannot say that if an entity possibly exists then that entity necessarily exists.
But the Maximally Great Being is a very Special Being, in fact, He possesses all the positive qualities maximally. One of these qualities is existence. Can we say that an entity is good if that entity does not exist? Of course not. Existence is the basic quality required to have all the others. Let’s think of a person. Let’s call him John Smith, and say that he does not exist in a possible world. how can he be wise in that world if he does not exist? To have any quality, John Smith must exist. If John Smith doesn’t exist in a world, in that world John Smith is nothing. How can Nothing have qualities?
Let’s think of a possible world in which Maximally Great Being exists. In that world, the Maximally Great Being possesses the quality of existence. Existence is a positive quality. In fact, in order to be great, is better to exist than not.
We have said that positive qualities make the entity greater. The more an entity has a positive quality, the more is great. For example, the more Napoleon has power the more he is great. Existence is a positive quality, so the more an entity exists, the more an entity is great.
In our world, an entity exists or not exists. It is true or false, there is no measurement for the existence. We cannot say that a horse exists more than a piano. But in modal logic, it doesn’t work like that. This is because we have possible worlds. In a possible world, a unicorn exists, while in another not. We can think of ten worlds in which a flying pig exists and ten in which not.
Let’s make an example. We can think of an entity (let’s name it A) that exists in only one possible world. And another entity (B), that exists in two possible worlds. As existence is a positive quality, we can say that B is greater than A. In fact, in a certain way, B has ‘more’ existence than A.
If we think like that, we can say that a Maximally Great Being must have, for His definition, the ‘maximum value’ for the quality of existence. Existence reached its maximum value in the Maximally Great Being, only if He exists in all possible worlds.
If we replace Maximally Great Being with God, the demonstration of the ontological argument goes like that:
- Step 1: If it’s possible that God exists, then God must exist in some possible worlds.
- Step 2: If God exists in some possible worlds, He must exist in all possible worlds
- Step 3: if God exist in all possible worlds, God must exist in our world
- Step 4: Therefore God exists.
We recently talked about the transcendental argument for God’s existence (TAG). TAG shows us how logic comes from God. we put together the ontological argument with the TAG, we can better understand why God must exist in all possible worlds. We said that a possible world is any world we can imagine, but with only one rule: the three fundamental laws of logic must be verified in it. We have seen these laws in the TAG. In our world, as in any possible world, logic exists because God exists. On the other hand, in any world where logic exists, the presence of God is required.
This is why it is important, when you build your case, to have the global picture of the evidence presented. Maybe you can refute all arguments individually, but, together they confirm each other. Arguments for God’s existence don’t contradict each other. Instead one strengthens the other.
When we look at the demonstration we have provided, steps 2 to 4 are academically accepted and follow the rules of modal logic. Those who want to debunk the argument must show the definition of Maximally Great Being to be inconsistent. To debunk the argument, you must say how a Maximally Great Being would be nonsense. If you show that M.G.B. is incoherent, M.G.B. would be impossible, so the whole argument would not work.
The only weakness of this argument is the fact that we have considered existence as a property. Some philosophers, such as Aquinas and Kant, have objected to this idea. This is why Kant developed his version of the TAG. In my opinion, there is no problem with it. As I said the TAG confirms the ontological argument, and vice-versa.
Sceptics have presented a few objections to try to debunk this argument, which we can easily answer.
The unicorn objection
Some have attempted to create parodies of the ontological argument by substituting a unicorn for God.
If it is possible for a unicorn to exist then the unicorn exists.
As we have seen the unicorn is a contingent being. In this world, as sure as I know, unicorns don’t exist. Our world, obviously, is still logically valid. But if God would not exist, logic would also not exist. Because God is an M.G.B. His existence must be maximally expressed in him. As we have already seen. The ontological argument works only with God. There is no other entity that you can use in the ontological argument. M.G.B. is like an exception to the rule. This is the result of bringing positive qualities to an infinite value. This kind of thing also happens in mathematics when you use the infinite symbol.
Omnipotence paradox
Sceptics ask: Since God is omnipotent, can He create a stone so heavy that not even He can move it? If yes, then God is not omnipotent because he cannot move the stone. If not, then God is not omnipotent because he cannot create the stone.
The question contains a contradiction. God is also omniscient. There are things that an Omniscient Being will never do. For example, to make a mistake. The fact that God can’t make a mistake confirms His character. For this reason, God can’t make logical nonsense. There are other things God can’t and will never do: like to do evil or lie. God is the Source of Logic. He can’t make nonsense. It’s like asking if God can tell you the shape of yellow, or to make a three-sided square, or say something that is both true and false at the same time, and so on… One cannot disprove the existence of God with logical absurdities.
Dawkins’ parody
Dawkins, a popular atheist, has invented some parodies of the ontological argument. One of them says the following: A god who does not exist and creates everything is greater than a God who exists and creates everything, therefore God does not exist.
This is obvious nonsense, in fact, there is no possible world in which a being that does not exist exists. To create something God must exist. Contrary to what Dawkins may believe, ‘nothing’ can’t create everything. The fact that something exists is the proof that God exists. Without God, nothing would exist. This is a big problem for atheists. They can’t give an explanation for their own existence.
The Problem of Evil and Imperfection in the World.
Some sceptics say: The world is filled with Evil. Therefore God is not enough good or not enough powerful to stop it. So God is not omnipotent, or not all good.
Others say: As God is omnipotent his creation should be perfect, but the creation is not perfect, therefore God doesn’t exist, or He is not omnipotent.
There is a case where an Omnipotent God makes His creation perfect, but man is responsible for introducing evil into the world. In this same case, that Omniscient God decides not to stop the evil until a certain moment in History, where this moment is in the future.
This case is extensively described in the Bible. In the book of Genesis, we learn how God creates everything perfect. God creates Adam and Eve limited but perfect. He puts them in a perfect world without sin and death. God gives them free will, in order to have fellowship with them. But love is a choice. God puts the forbidden tree, command them not to eat from there, and warns them about the consequences if they do that. Tempted by Satan, they disobey eating the fruit and bringing evil in them. God as perfectly just must punish the sin. If you have sin you cannot stay with God in his glory. As man has dominion over the creation, creation is cursed with man. Death and sin enter reality.
The fact that evil is found in the world, depends on man. By having free will, man can choose between good and evil. God can stop evil, but He doesn’t want to do it now. Because He is omniscient, He knows more than us about this. So there is a reason why God doesn’t stop evil today. As He knows everything he has the ultimate ‘big picture’.
This reason is explained in the Bible and makes perfect sense. By having a biblical worldview, that is based on the truthfulness of the word of God, we can explain things that are inexplicable from other worldviews.
In Genesis, we can read how God created everything and man brought evil into reality through an act of disobedience and rebellion. In the New Testament, we see how God sent Jesus to pay the price for our sins. From the book of Revelation, we learn that God will judge humanity based on their own deeds and thoughts, and will separate those who believed in Jesus for the Kingdom of Heaven; from all the others who, based on their sins, will be condemned to eternal punishment.
With the biblical explanation, not only we are rejecting this objection, but also we have logical evidence that the God we are talking about, is the God of the Bible.
Empirical evidence objection
Most sceptics argue that the only way to prove the existence of God is with empirical evidence. If it is not possible to prove God empirically, then God does not exist.
The philosophy of materialism creates confusion in the minds of those who believe in it. The problem of materialists is that they don’t want to realize that there are two realities: the physical reality which is the one we can discover through the senses, and the spiritual reality which is made of abstract concepts, discovered through a process of the mind. God is a spiritual reality, as the Bible says, God is spirit. But the fact that we cannot discover God through our senses does not mean that God does not exist. Just like the fact that we can’t discover morality with our senses.
Can we smell justice? Our touch wisdom? Can we hear the numbers? Have they a magnetic field? How can we have empirical proof of the square root of two? Or imaginary numbers? Or any real number with infinite decimal places? This is not possible through the senses, but only through logic. We have already talked about this topic, the post dedicated to the TAG, which you can find in this blog. There are true statements that are not empirically provable. We don’t need empirical proof to prove the truth of some claims.
Asking a man to demonstrate God empirically is like asking Hamlet to demonstrate Shakespeare empirically. Shakespeare, being the creator of Hamlet, is separate from his creation, and does not live on the same reality level as Hamlet.
Reverse ontological argument
The attempt is to replace the existence of God with the non-existence in the ontological argument: if it’s possible that a Maximally Great Being does not exist, then a Maximally Great Being does not exist.
- Step 1: If it’s possible that God does not exist, then God must not exist in some possible worlds.
- Step 2: If God does not exist in some possible worlds, He must not exist in all possible worlds
- Step 3: If God does not exist in all possible worlds, God must not exist in our world
- Step 4: Therefore God does not exist.
But step 2 is false. In fact, as we saw God exists in all possible worlds because he has q the quality of existence in a maximal quantity. This depends on the nature of God, and it is not valid for any other being. God is the only being for whom this is possible, due to his definition of him. The statement “it is possible that God does not exist” is always false, thanks to the ontological argument. Saying “if it is possible that God does not exist” is like saying “false”. The only way, as we have said, to demonstrate that God does not exist, is to find a contradiction in the concept of God, as we have defined it.
Maximally great unicorn objection
This attempt is made by specifying that the maximally great being is a unicorn.
- Step 1: If it’s possible that a Maximally Great Unicorn (MGU) exists, then MGU must exist in some possible worlds.
- Step 2: If MGU exists in some possible worlds, it must exist in all possible worlds
- Step 3: if MGU exist in all possible worlds, MGU must exist in our world
- Step 4: Therefore MGU exists.
The attempt wants to demonstrate that with this argument we can demonstrate the existence in this world of something that we know that doesn’t actually exist, thus invalidating the argument. But once again, whoever makes this attempt has not fully understood that the ontological argument works only with God. Since God is the Creator, separate from his creation, he is the only being who can be maximally great.
Any unicorn is a physical being. Physical beings are made of matter. The matter has a cause, as we have already seen in the post ‘The Uncaused Cause‘. Therefore a unicorn can’t be maximally great.
God is the evil, objection
In this objection is assumed that God is evil. But we know goodness is a positive quality, So God can’t be evil. As goodness is a positive quality, evilness is the lack of it. No one is evil just to be evil. People are evil because they want to gain something good for them, but they do it in the wrong way. On the contrary, God is good for the sake of it. When we apply the biblical worldview to this topic, we see that the only one we can call good is God. God cannot perform evil because he is Good.
God of Love objection
As love is a positive quality and hate is a lack of love. God must have the quality of love maximalized. Love to be performed must happen between two different persons. But if God is the Creator of every other being, how could he love someone else, if He was alone before the creation?
This is not a problem if you apply the biblical worldview. In fact, the Bible says that God is three persons and one God at the same time. As follows from the Bible we have the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They express a perfect and eternal love for each other. Their love is from the beginning of time and always will be.