The Existence of God: The Ontological Argument

The Second Argument: the Onotological argument.
(Ontological= ontos [being]+logia [science, study]; so this word means "the study of being," which would mean this argument comes from the study of being.)

1. God is the entity than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must therefore be necessary.
4. Hence, God exists necessarily.

First formed by Avicenna, a Muslim philosopher, and more familiarly by St. Ansalem of Canterburry in 1077-78.

I really like this argument. Not because it is the most convincing argument, no, it really doesn't have to much sway on people. The argument is an a priori argument, meaning it is an argument made independent from experience, and in a culture that lives by experience ("I'll believe it when I see it") the ontological argument is more of a novelty than anything. I like this argument because one of the best objections to it is made like this:

1. The creation of the world [universe, everything] is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Richard Dawkins has a similar argument against the ontological argument in The God Delusion, and frankly, this is laughable. Number 4 says, "The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence." So, how can one conceive of a non-existent being? It's logically inconsistent because "being" implies existence: one cannot have being when non-existent because being is uneqivoically linked to existence, plain and simple. The "non-existent creator" is just a cheap ploy to side step the logical outcome of this argument. Even if one could conceive of a non-existent creator, a greater being would be the one who creates then brings itself into existence, but we can all see how this is just silly.

Ther is another form of the Ontological argument worth mentioning, but I will not go into it on the blog because it is very technical and frankly...I don't understand all of it! This argument is presented by Alvin Plantinga (one of the foremost philosphers in recent times and a strong Orthodox Protestent Christian). What I will do is provide a link to this argument, here.

So, that's basically all I want to say concerning this.