In the 11th century, St. Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109 AD) formulated the first version of what would come to be called the ontological argument for the existence of God. From the field of ontology, the argument is grounded in the phi l o sophi cal study of “being,” or, we could say the study of existence. Following Anselm, thinkers such as Descartes, Leibniz, and Aquinas, as well as modern thinkers including Plantinga, refined the argument into the version often utilized in Christian apologetics today. The argument itself is composed of premises that are derived from reason alone rather than observation and is therefore termed an a priori (from knowledge rather than from experience) argument.
In the simplest of terms, Anselm argued that there exists a Being the existence of which no greater Being can be conceived. In other words, man can think of a Being so great that it is impossible to think of one any greater. Since reason tells us that there can only be one greatest possible Being because if one could think of a greater Being, then the former being would not be the greatest after all. Now this seems rather straightforward and reasonable. But if we were to seek out some guidelines of the characteristics that the greatest possible Beingmustpossessinordertobethe greatest,thetopprioritywouldhave to be that the greatest possible Being actually exists in reality rather than only in our own mind. Stated another way, a Being that actually exists in reality is greater than a Being that only exists in the mind. For example, suppose a unicorn is a horse-like creature, the likes of whichnogreaterhorse-likecreature can be conceived. However, a standard horse is a greater horse-like creature than the unicorn because a standard horse actually existing in reality is necessarily greater than the unicorn existing only in the mind. By the same reasoning, if the greatest possible Being exists only in the mind, as the atheists argue concerning God, then this is not the greatest possible Being after all—one even greater could be imagined. Namely, one that exists in reality.
God possesses what Christian apologist Douglas Groothuis calls the “intrinsic maximum.” Christian theology proper holds that God possesses maximal knowledge, maximal presence, and maximal power—He establishes and embodies the ultimate limit of perfection in His nature and essence. Therefore, it logically follows that if God is the greatest possible Being, then by definition and necessity, God must exist in reality rather than only in the mind. That is, God exists.
While Anselm assumes existence is a great-making property, interestingly, one criticism of the ontological argument questions if it truly is greater to exist than not. Shakespeare’s Hamlet, of course, contemplated the potential virtues of “to be or not to be,” but that was in the sense of whether it was better to go on living this life, or to die. Here, on the other hand, the question is whether it is better to exist or to have never existed. And, one can speculate based upon observation, or perhaps experience, that there are lives that were lived out in such constant pain and misery that one could wonder if it were better for them to have never been born. On the contrary, the Christian answer to existence is relatively straightforward. Life on Earth, regardless of the degree of grief and pain endured, is dwarfed by the glory of eternal life in paradise (cf Rom 8:18). Even so, this line of thinking misses the point. Anselm is not applying the statement of existence being greater than nonexistence across the board to all living things. In context, Anselm is only suggesting that it is greater for the greatest Being to exist rather than not. Thus, it logically follows that a truly Perfect Being would not have an existence that was not perfect in every sense. By that I mean the greatest possible Being could not exist in a state of grief and pain and still be the greatest possible Being. Therefore, it seems logically sound that the existence of a Perfect Being is greater than that Being’s nonexistence.
Now, after all of this philosophical mumbo-jumbo, what does it all mean?
All things considered, it seems to me the ontological argument is valid and the conclusion necessarily follows: God exists. Not only does it follow from the argument that God exists, but if God is the maximally greatest possible Being, then much more can be said about the nature of the attributes perfectly possessed by the greatest possible Being; namely, His perfection. We have already mentioned that God’s greatness, by necessity, entails the divine attributes of all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent. Going further, it can be said that God’smaximalperfectionalsoinfers those attributes that Christians so highly esteem: all-just, all-loving, all-benevolent, all-merciful. By reason, such are the divine attributes of the greatest possible Being who “so loved the world that He gave His onlybegottenSonsothatwhosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
Gloria in excelsis Deo!
Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.