Converging and Convincing Proof of God: Perfection is Real

11/12/2012

(Page 2 of 2)

if we can conceive of God in this way, then Anselm's proof "rules out the possibility of intelligently denying God's existence."

Only a fool--if he can conceive of the concept "that than which a greater cannot be thought" in his mind--can also set his face against such a concept existing in reality, in other words having a basis in experience as a whole. He would be placed in the quandary of admitting perfection has a basis in reality and denying perfection has a basis in reality. As Aidan Nichols puts it: "It does not make sense to deny the purchase on reality of the language of unsurpassable perfection."

Aidan Nichols explains why the language of perfection suggests the reality of perfection. Language dealing with external objects (say, for example, an apple) participates in a "shared public realm," in other words, something outside the self. Otherwise, we would not be able to communicate with each other, for language, if not about something outside of us, would be meaningful only to one's self. But it's clearly not.

When we use a word such as "apple," it has a meaning for us, but it also has a public meaning, a conventional meaning, and one that it based upon reality. Otherwise, our friend would not understand what we mean by "apple" if we asked him for one. He understands what we mean by "apple," and he understands it as something real, because that shared concept of "apple" has a basis in reality.

Suppose, however, that we use the word "squared circle." Such a word has no meaning to us, nor a public meaning, nor a basis in reality, though the individual references in the word by themselves, "square" and "circle," do. If we asked our friend for a "squared circle" he would not be able to understand what we meant, and would probably think us insane since we are asking for something that has no basis in reality.

Words can also be used in a manner that exploits their basis in reality, though they do not deal in real things. For example, if we refer to mythical "unicorns," what we do is paste together words and therefore concepts that are based upon reality but which are put together to mean not something nonsensical, but only something unreal. Thus a unicorn is a "white" "horselike creature" with a "single straight horn" projecting from its "forehead." It is a fictitious patchwork of things which, separately, have a basis in reality.

Is the language "that than which no greater can be conceived"--the language of absolute perfection--the language of apples, of square circles, or unicorns?

According to Aidan Nichols, "Anselm shows how our capacity to use the language of absolute perfection makes it unintelligible to deny that such language opens out onto the realm of the real." In other words, talk about absolute perfection is the language of apples, not of square circles or unicorns.

The philosopher Heidegger referred to language as the "house of being," das Haus de Seins. If language is the "house of being," then the language of perfection--that than which nothing greater can be conceived--resides in the center of that "house of being," like Christ the Pantokrator, the maker of all things, sits on his throne.

St. Anselm, of course, realized that this concept that existed in reality--that than which nothing greater can be conceived--was a person, and had a name. This he knew by faith before he ever starting thinking about it. But the proof he gave of God is based on reason alone, and for it he worked backwards as it were, from faith to reason. His proof is therefore a priori, and not a posteriori, as most proofs of God based upon reason are. This was true to his motto fides quaerens intellectum: faith seeking understanding.

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 say that God exists, and then from that threshold to take the further step further by an act of faith and prayer and believe in the God who became man.

"Lord, you are then not only that than which nothing greater can be thought; you are something greater than it is possible to think about. For since it is possible to think that this could exist, if you are not that thing, then a greater than you can be thought; and that will not do. . . . . And this is you, O Lord our God. You therefore so truly are, O lord my God, that you cannot even be thought not to be."

"The God who is the Lord of the Church is also the God of the inquiring mind," says Aidan Nichols. This linking of St. Anselm's ontological proof of God with the God Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, and Jesus Christ echoes the words of Blessed John Paul II in his encyclical on the relationship of faith and reason, Fides et Ratio: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."

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

-----

Andrew M. Greenwell is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas, practicing in Corpus Christi, Texas. He is married with three children. He maintains a blog entirely devoted to the natural law called Lex Christianorum. You can contact Andrew at agreenwell@harris-greenwell.com.
- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: illative sense, God, natural theology, proofs of God, St. Anselm, Ontological Proof, Andrew M. Greenwell, Esq.

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2

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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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
6 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