Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109) formulated the original Ontological Argument a thousand years ago: first define “God” as the greatest possible being that we can imagine. Next, consider existence only in someone’s mind versus existence in reality—the latter is obviously greater. Finally, since “God” must be the greatest possible being, he must exist in reality. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t meet the definition of the greatest possible being.

This is a popular argument for Christianity, but how is this not wishing something into existence? If we can simply think God into existence, what else can we think into existence?

There are other issues: look at that first step in the argument. It defines God as the greatest possible being that we can imagine. But in step three, we are talking about beings that exist, and the definition of “God” from the first step no longer applies. Definitions have switched mid-argument.

Next, “greatest” is subjective. Was the English military victory at Agincourt or the Greek holding action at Thermopylae greater? Was the Hoover Dam or the Taj Mahal the greater civil engineering project? Is the greater god the omnipotent one, or is he the one limited in power but who surpasses his limitations by getting things done through cooperation? The greatest possible being is like the highest integer—you can always go a little higher.

God from the first point in the argument (God is the greatest being that we can imagine) is undefined, just like the greatest political candidate. These are subjective categories.

Next, given the genocide, slavery, and other backwards thinking in the Old Testament, God is clearly not the Greatest Possible Being.

Next, the Greatest Possible Being is perfectly satisfied and has no needs. No needs means no motivation to change or create, so it can’t be the creator of our universe.

Next, if we’re just imagining things into existence, other less-pleasant things could come along as well. The Ontological Argument invites its negative version: define “God” as the worst possible being that we can imagine. Then consider existence only in someone’s mind versus existence in reality—it would obviously be worse if this being actually existed. Finally, since “God” must be the worst possible being, he must exist in reality.

Lastly, many philosophers have rejected the argument. David Hume observed that to think of a unicorn (for example) is to think of it existing. Adding a second step, “Now think of the unicorn existing,” is meaningless. The same is true for God—the idea of God is the idea of God existing, and the argument no longer works.

The Ontological Argument is effective, not because it’s right, but because it’s perplexing. A God who wanted a relationship with humans wouldn’t be findable only through opaque arguments.

Continue to chapter 9.

Image credit: in hiatus (CC BY 2.0) via flickr

Notes

Anselm of Canterbury: Born in Italy, Anselm became abbot of an abbey in Normandy, France. He became the second archbishop of Canterbury installed after the conquest of England by William, Duke of Normandy. He died in 1109 and was canonized in 1163.

xkcd cartoon: www.xkcd.com/1505.