Converging and Convincing Proof of God: Perfection is Real

By Andrew M. Greenwell, Esq.
11/12/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Like St. Anselm, let us rise up to God--that than which nothing greater can be conceived--with two wings.

St. Anselm went from faith and from prayer to reason in a sort of existential continuum. But there is no reason that one cannot take his proof and step up by the use of reason alone to see that it is reasonable to believe in God, and then from that threshold to take the further step further by an act of faith and prayer.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic Online) - In prior articles of this series on converging and convincing proofs of God, we have spoken about the illative sense. Following that, we explored proofs of God's existence based upon the existence of desire and truth. In this installment, we will focus on a unique argument, the "unum argumentum," that came to St. Anselm of Canterbury (ca. 1033-1109) one day in sudden inspiration after praying Matins, and which he bequeathed to us in the work entitled Proslogion. It has been called the ontological argument.

In itself, the argument is quite simple.

It starts with a definition of God, a definition that can be accepted by anyone, including the fool who says in his heart that there is no God. (Cf. Ps. 14:1).

God is defined as "that than which a greater cannot be thought," aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit. This is a being with the fullness of perfection, of power, of intelligence, of truth, and of love. There is no perfection that can be thought of which is not present in that than which a greater cannot be thought.

Importantly, even an atheist can understand such a concept. That sort of concept exists in his mind, although he would deny (though, as St. Anselm would show, inconsistently) that the being identified by such a concept has existence outside his mind.

The atheist can also conceive in his mind the possibility that such a perfect being can exist outside of his mind, if for no other reason than to deny it. (How can he deny it, if he cannot conceive that that than which no greater can be thought may also exist?) So the atheist can conceive that "that than which a greater cannot be thought" can exist both in his mind and outside of his mind, that is to say in reality also.

This puts the atheist in an immediate quandary because he has two thoughts in his mind that contradict each other.

He has in his mind the concept "that than which a greater cannot be thought" as existing only in his own mind (in intellectu), and "that than which a greater cannot be thought" as existing in his own mind and in reality (in intellectu and also in re). Yet something existing both in the mind and in reality is greater than something only existing in the mind and not existing in reality.

He cannot hold both concepts simultaneously, and the former must yield to the latter, and so that than which a greater can be thought must exist both in the mind and in reality. This necessarily means that God exists in reality.

"If," St. Anselm observes, "that than which a greater cannot be thought exists in the mind alone, this same thing than which a greater cannot be thought is that than which a greater can be thought," namely that that which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the mind and reality. "But this is obviously impossible," St. Anselm concludes.

"Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the mind and in reality."

In other words, the very thought of the concept of God would seem to require, as a necessary corollary, that God also exists. This is the only way to avoid the quandary.

The proof has given many doubters many fits. Even the atheist Bertrand Russell is said to have exclaimed one day after having bought a tin of tobacco, "Great God in Boots!--the ontological argument [of St. Anselm] is sound!" But it didn't seem to dissuade him from his disbelief, though he admitted that "it is easier to feel convinced that [the ontological argument of St. Anselm] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."

Frequently, Immanuel Kant has been invoked to disprove St. Anselm's ontological proof. Kant's argument against St. Anselm works if existence adds something to the concept in the mind, for then the two concepts are different, and being different cannot contradict each other. But Kant's disproof fails if we understand St. Anselm to mean that existing in reality (in re) "means belonging to experience as a whole, which experience cannot but be informative about the realm of the real."

According to Aidan Nichols, St. Anselm's argument is "founded upon the language of perfection." St. Anselm's definition of God--that than which a greater cannot be conceived--is equivalent to proposing the "the unconditionally perfect." If, we can talk of God in this way, and ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 10 Comments

Andrew M. Greenwell
7 months ago
From http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/471/ontarg.html

Anselm’s first ontological argument
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. (definition)
2. God exists in our minds, i.e., we have the idea of God. (premiss)
3. But it is greater to exist in reality and in mind than just to exist in the mind. (premiss)
4. That than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in our minds. (by (1) and (2))
5. But by (3), that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist just in the mind.
6. Therefore, that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists (by (4) and (5)).

Anselm’s second ontological argument
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. (definition)
2. We have an idea of God. (premiss)
3. But it is greater to be such that one cannot be conceived not to exist, than to be such that one can be conceived not to exist. (premiss)
4. We could conceive of God as being such that he cannot be conceived not to exist. (premiss: this Anselm omitted)
5. By (1), (3) and (4), if we conceive of God, then we conceive of God as a being that cannot be conceived not to exist.
6. But we do conceive of God. (by (2))
7. Therefore, the God of our conception is a being that cannot be conceived not to exist. (by (5) and (6))
8. Therefore, God exists. (from (7))

Plantinga’s ontological argument
1. God is a maximally great being. (definition)
2. A maximally great being is one which is maximally excellent (including being omnipotent and omniscient) in every possible world. (definition)
3. It is (logically) possible that there is a God. (premiss)
4. Therefore, there is a possible world W in which God exists. (by (3))
5. Therefore, in W, the following statement is true: “God is maximally excellent, and in particular exists, in every possible world.” (by (4))
6. Therefore, in W, the following statement is true: “It is logically impossible for there to fail to be a maximally excellent being.” (Since what is true in every possible world is that which logically cannot fail to be true.)
7. But logic does not vary between possible worlds—what is contradictory in one world, is contradictory in others, and hence what is impossible in one world, is impossible in others. (premiss)
8. Therefore, (in the actual world) it is logically impossible for there to fail to be a maximally excellent being. (by (6) and (7))
9. Hence, there is a maximally excellent being in every possible world. (by (8))
10. Hence, there is a God (by (1), (2) and (9)).

A Leibnizian ontological argument
1. God is a being that has all perfections. (definition)
2. Necessary existence is a perfection. (definition)
3. It is possible that God exists. For:
3.1. Perfections are simple ideas. (premiss)
3.1. Simple ideas are all mutually compatible, since a proof of their incompatibility would require further articulation of the simple ideas. (premiss)
3.2. A being all of whose properties are mutually compatible is possible. (premiss)
3.3. Therefore, all of God’s properties are mutually compatible. (By (1), (3.1) and (3.2).)
3.4. Therefore, (3).
4. Therefore, our idea of God is a genuine idea. Hence premisses (2) in Anselm’s arguments are true, and premiss (3) in Plantinga’s argument is true. Hence, there is a God.
PhillyChief
7 months ago
The problem with this argument is not that it's a brain twister. It quite simply doesn't hold up. The brain twisting occurs when one tries to use it to justify what they already believe. That is rationalization.

Ultimately, as you said, faith is needed to accept what this argument attempts to prove. I certainly agree, but I'm curious why, if one already has faith, that they'd need this or any other argument? Is faith alone not enough? Is it faith that, for all its wonder, has its limit and requires reason? And in lieu of the support of reason, calls on rationalizations such as this ontological argument?
Juneau Alaska
7 months ago
Andrew M Greenwell,

Come on now. Making an affirmation (that's what you are doing) that God is "x" (all powerful, etc.,) adds nothing to the column called "evidence for the reasonability of accepting God's existence." Simply replace God (I am assuming you mean Yahweh) with any other documented deity (or even the term, extra-galactic alien) and see what happens. It's a nullity Andrew.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Without evidence for gods, the reasonable doxastic position is atheism, not theism.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will say that I've otherwise enjoyed your historical exposé on some of the ancient thinkers when you try to get inside their heads. Mike, friendly atheist.
vance
7 months ago
I watched a scientist explain that planet earth is set on a perfect distance from the sun on a perfect axis. If any of these were off by a small amount, there would be no life on earth. This was on the science channel on cable TV. This individual was not bringing religion into the discussion. This was a secular science lesson. The point is that the complexity of all life forms and the cosmos is too perfect to happen by accident. Many scientists concur.
Andrew M. Greenwell
7 months ago
@PhillyChief: St. Anselm's ontological argument is a brain twister, to be sure. And it does suffer from some problems, which, as a result of the general treatment in my article I do not address. However, if you are interested in seeing the proof perfected, I refer you to the work of Alvin Plantinga. Here is a brief treatment of the ontological proof, its problems, and Plantinga's work in fixing it to remove the flaws through the use of modal logic:

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html

Reason, for all its wonder, has its limit and can become rationalization. It needs faith, like faith need it. Ultimately, however, I'm glad that, as St. Ambrose said, "It was not by dialectic that it pleased God to save His people." De fide, I, 5, 42.
abey
7 months ago
How can a human mind that wanders in time reveal God, unless it come from Him & it has come- to His very first Commandments.
PhillyChief
7 months ago
@Andrew: To your objection that apples exist thus I'm mixing a posteriori and a priori, the apple I was thinking of doesn't exist. Yes apples exist, but the one I'm thinking of is an apple which a greater cannot be thought of. The everyday apple we all know is just to provide some description on this thing, some context. If, however, you're hung up on the apple then we can say the same thing about a god.

Gods may not be real in the sense that apples are, but the idea of gods or more specifically a supreme god is a very real concept that can be experienced (and it's hard to imagine that there is a human on this planet today who hasn't been exposed to such a concept), therefore "that than which a greater cannot be thought" is not a priori. One need not have to experience a thing, only another's thought of a thing.

Another problem is your concept of "that than which a greater cannot be thought" may be different than mine due to such differences as intellect, knowledge and personal preference, so should we assume everybody's "that than which a greater cannot be thought" must exist? That seems troublesome. Furthermore, I would say that if something couldn't be experienced by the senses then it's not "that than which a greater cannot be thought" because I don't see such a thing as being that great then.
Andrew M. Greenwell
7 months ago
@PhillyChief: Here's perhaps something you overlooked in your comment. The apple is something that exists, that's why the thought of it, the concept, is in your mind. The concept comes to you from outside you to within you through your senses and is fashioned as a concept through abstraction in your mind and is stored in memory. It goes from out to in, so to speak. The concept of God as that than which no greater can be conceived does not come from the outside in since God is not something detected by the senses and then made into a concept in the mind. The fact that you can think of this concept--that than which no greater can be conceived--suggests that God is something that is part of your experience of the real. This concept, however, in contradistinction to the apple, is going in to out, so to speak. You are mixing things that are going out to in (a posteriori) with a thing that is going in to out (a priori).
PhillyChief
7 months ago
I could use the same argument to justify the existence of many things, like the apple of which a greater cannot be thought. If it's greater for that apple to exist outside of my mind than just within my mind, then that apple must exist.

Of course this argument is also dependent upon one's definition of perfection. For instance, how great could that apple be if I can't see it? Hmmm, a quandary.
DLL
7 months ago
My Dear Lord God,who or what am I to ever say that you are a myth or that you can not or do not exist. Does a character in a play ever say that the play writer does not or cannot exist? How can the character be without the play writer? Is there another planet with life as we can conceive it to be on earth somewhere in this vast universe of ours? Who am I to say there is not such a planet. I am a mere mortal a small drop of water from the fawset of humanity. I am destined to evaporate in my time,we refer to as a lifetime. Am I greater than the over scheme of things or of a God who is the play writer for all of humanity. What story on earth does not have a source,a beginning or an end for that matter,the vastness of the universe as well as the concept of eternity,are well beyond our ability to comprehend it all. God you are beyond our comprehension. In Christ we know that you are no myth and at best we may simply be the myth,as we pass through time,when our time is done,we become easily forgotten,as if we never existed at all. You God are the Alpha and the Omega,you are the great I Am because you are familiar to each and every age in time. Dear play writer of all humanity,take not Thy Holy Spirit from us,as without the very concept of your blessed reality and most certainly your true and Holy existence,we are lost in the sin of relativity that is illusive and misleading,to make us the created,to think we are the authors of or own destiny. You Lord are within us and in each other we see you,because you created each and everyone of us. The essence of life is to love as you God are the source of love,the great play writer,the greatest romantic,the author of all that is created. You are simply beyond all that I could ever Imagine,I can only offer to you praise and thanksgiving,now and forever. Amen.

Prev1Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment