THOUGHTS ON THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD
St Anselm of Canterbury stated that God is that than
which a greater or better cannot be conceived or thought of. Since God is
greater than can be imagined he must exist for he wouldn't be the greatest
unless he existed. This is called the ontological argument.
Infinity of numbers argument
Some teach the following. We are able to think of the infinity of numbers so we
could think of the idea of there being infinite good. God is identified with
infinite good.
The Handbook of Christian Apologetics declares that we cannot think of anything
at all being limited unless we know that infinity and unlimitedness is possible
(page 69). It says that infinity is there even if we do not realise it and that
it must have come from God. But we see so many different things around us and
the things we judge as limited are seen as less than that. A child can see
things as limited without realising that we are in infinite space and that
numbers have no end.
But even if there were nothing at all, countlessness would still exist. 1 and 1
would still be 2 though there is nothing.
Infinity does not exist in one sense but in another it is real. This has nothing
to do with God.
Existence is not a predicate or power
Believers hold that God is existence or God is being – because he causes
existence he must be existence. Some say that there must be a that than which a
greater cannot be thought for existence is a quality and so it would not be that
than which a greater cannot be thought if it did not exist. But existence is not
a quality or a power. There is such a thing as nothing. Nothing exists and you
don’t say that a power or quality called existence causes it!
If there was nothing at all, 1 and 1 is still 2. This truth is not a power which
is why it exists even if no God or anything exists.
When seen as a pointer to God rather than a proof
The New Catholic Encyclopaedia argues that the Anselm argument was not an
ontological argument; ontological has to do with being and the nature of it. In
other words, it is not scientifically or rationally proving that there is a
being. What it is doing is saying is that one must believe in God as that than
which a greater cannot be thought and since the understanding develops our
insight to what this means we will see it validate and verify itself. In other
words, we believe on faith and cannot understand God and the more we understand
the more we see that God is that than which a greater cannot be thought and must
exist. It is like believing that Napoleon lost everything at Waterloo and the
more you understand it the more sure you are that it happened. It is only an
argument that works for believers. It is not for unbelievers. Gaunilo, Anselm’s
critic, said that it was mad for Anselm to define God arbitrarily and then claim
to prove that definition and he argued that to imagine an island greater than
which cannot be thought does not mean that island exists. Anselm replied that it
was not arbitrary for God would have to be above human understanding and that
his argument applies only to God and not to anything like an island that is
greater than anything that can be conceived for the island might be beyond our
understanding but it is not something that is as great as God who is infinitely
great and perfect. I would reply that it makes no difference. What has quantity
have to do with it if it is something than which a greater we cannot think of?
A priori
Some think they can tell by the argument that it is intended to be a priori.
That is it does not argue from any existing thing that there is a God. If they
are right then it argues that there is a God like one would argue that 1=1 which
is an a priori truth. They declare that the premise that the supreme being is
that than which a greater cannot be thought and the other premise that God must
exist in reality when he is that than which a greater cannot be thought are both
a priori meaning that the conclusion must be (page 23, Taking Leave of God). But
we do not see their truth in the way we see 1=1 as true so they are not a priori
and the argument fails.
What God?
The argument assumes that the personal three in one God of Christianity is that
than which a greater cannot be thought. But why should it be this version of
God, this idea? There are other ideas. If logic or theology need God to be a
loving relationship between three "persons" then why three? With an infinite God
you expect it to be countless persons.
If God is that than which a greater cannot be thought
then how does the trinity come into all that? The trinity doctrine says
that God is only three persons. There are three persons in God. The attraction
of the doctrine is the idea that these persons are united by love. So God is a
community. But what if God is that than which a greater cannot be thought? An
infinite community of persons would be greater than three. A trinitarian
God cannot be that than which a greater cannot be thought.
Kant and Hume
Kant and David Hume held that Anselm made a logical error. Anselm assumed that
existence is a predicate - this is the notion that existence adds something to a
definition (page 221, Philosophy of Religion for A Level, OCR Edition, Anne
Jordan, Neil Lockyer and Edwin Tate, Nelson Thornes Ltd, 1999). In other words,
existence is like a skin colour it is something an entity has or hasn't got. But
to speak of an entity lacking existence is contradictory. An entity is what
exists. So Anselm thought that existence is a property and God by definition
cannot lack this property so if you understand what God means you must
understand that he exists.
God creating the understanding of God?
Some think that the idea of God is so perfect that only God could help you think of him so the idea of God implies there is a God. But man can never imagine God in reality. Man can only think he can. The argument then is an argument for imagining God into existence. Even if there is a God you are not interested in him but in the one you imagine.
Prime Number
There is no greatest prime number but the ontological
argument would seem to prove there is. If the argument proves a maximally
great God it proves a maximally great prime number as well. There is a
prime number than which a greater cannot be thought. The number must exist
in the mind. It exists in reality as well for it cannot exist in the mind
unless it really is a true number. If the ontological argument works then
it works if God is not a being but a number!!
Laying it to rest
There are other matters that are more important even than God and therefore have
more right to be considered to be a power that which no greater or better can be
thought. The that than which a greater cannot be thought isn't so great if it
has unnecessary components. It should be basic. Why not say that intelligence is
that than which a greater cannot be thought? Why not say that consciousness is
that than which a greater cannot be thought? It makes more sense to say one of
these things. Intelligence is better than love for love is dangerous and
impotent without it. Consciousness is better than love for only conscious beings
can love. The Bible describes God as love. It seems it would go for the idea
that love, God, is that than which a better or greater cannot be thought. But
then love is no use without intelligence. The Christian God is too complicated
to be that than which a greater cannot be thought.
If you have a choice, do you want people to love or to serve God? It is better
for people to love each other than for them to care about God. Efforts to prove
or give evidence for God are disgraceful. The end result is always an idol!
Finally
St Anselm left the world nothing that should perturb atheists. Christians have
little to do when they ponder over the pathetic argument he left. And that is
why their nonsense has to be challenged.
WORKS CONSULTED
A HISTORY OF GOD, Karen Armstrong, Mandarin, London, 1994
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ,
Doubleday/Image, New York, 1964
A PATH FROM ROME, Anthony Kenny Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1985
A SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust,
London, 1971
AN INTELLIGENT PERSONS GUIDE TO CATHOLICISM, Alban McCoy, Continuum, London and
New York, 1997
AN INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS, John Hospers, Routledge, London, 1992
APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Part 1, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill, &
Son, Dublin, 1954
APOLOGETICS FOR THE PULPIT, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD,
London, 1950
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin Books, London, 1991
ARGUING WITH GOD, Hugh Sylvester, IVP, London, 1971
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
CONTROVERSY: THE HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER, Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books,
London, 1971
CRITIQUES OF GOD, Edited by Peter A Angeles, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION, David Hume, William Blackwood and Sons,
Edinburgh and London, 1907
DOES GOD EXIST? Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1982
DOES GOD EXIST? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena,
California, 1972
DOING AWAY WITH GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall Pickering, London, 1993
GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003
GOD AND PHILOSOPHY, Antony Flew, Hutchinson, London, 1966
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1967
GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1990
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic
Books, London, 2007
GOD THE PROBLEM, Gordon D Kaufman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1973
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch,
East Sussex, 1995
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 2, Frederick Copleston SJ Westminster, Maryland,
Newman, 1962
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press, London, 1963
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
IN SEARCH OF CERTAINTY, John Guest Regal Books, Ventura, California, 1983
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V. Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image
Doubleday and Co, New York, 1961
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1996
PHILOSOPHY AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, Colin Brown, IVP, London, 1973
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 1, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul,
Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul,
Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul,
Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND RELIGION, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
SALVIFICI DOLORIS, Pope John Paul II, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1984
TAKING LEAVE OF GOD, Don Cupitt, SCM Press, London, 1980
THE CASE AGAINST GOD, Gerald Priestland, Collins, Fount Paperbacks, London, 1984
THE CONCEPT OF GOD, Ronald H Nash, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983
THE HONEST TO GOD DEBATE Edited by David L Edwards, Westminster Press,
Philadelphia, 1963
THE KINDNESS OF GOD, EJ Cuskelly MSC, Mercier Press, Cork, 1965
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins, London, 1990
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum, London-New
York, 2006
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London,
1905
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM, London, 1982
WHAT IS FAITH? Anthony Kenny, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992
Why I Became an Atheist, John Loftus, Prometheus Books, New York, 2008