The Existence of God is possible

The Ontological Argument The ontological argument was devised by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), who wanted to produce a single, simple demonstration which would show that God is and what God is. Single it may be, but far from simple. It is, perhaps, the most controversial proof for the existence of God. Most people who first hear it are tempted to dismiss it immediately as an interesting riddle, but distinguished thinkers of every age, including our own, have risen to defend it. For this very reason it is the most intensely philosophical proof for God's existence; its place of honor is not within popular piety, but rather textbooks and professional journals. We include it, with a minimum of discussion, not because we think it conclusive or irrefutable, but for the sake of completeness. Anselm's Version 1.It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone. 2."God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought." 3.Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality. 4.Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence). 5.But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought." 6.Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality. Question 1: Suppose I deny that God exists in the mind? Reply: In that case the argument could not conclude that God exists in the mind and in reality. But note: the denial commits you to the view that there is no concept of God. And very few would wish to go that far. Question 2: Is it really greater for something to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone? Reply: The first premise of this argument is often misunderstood. People sometimes say: "Isn't an imaginary disease better than a real one?" Well it certainly is better"and so a greater thing"for you that the disease is not real. But that strengthens Anselm's side of the argument. Real bacteria are greater than imaginary ones, just because they have something that imaginary ones lack: real being. They have an independence, and therefore an ability to harm, that nothing can have whose existence is wholly dependent on your thought. It is this greater level of independence that makes them greater as beings. And that line of thinking does not seem elusive or farfetched. Question 3: But is real being just another "thought" or "concept"? Is "real being" just one more concept or characteristic (like "omniscience" or "omnipotence") that could make a difference to the kind of being God is? Reply: Real being does make a real difference. The question is: Does it make a conceptual difference? Critics of the argument say that it does not. They say that just because real being makes all the difference it cannot be one more quality among others. Rather it is the condition of there being something there to have any qualities at all. When the proof says that God is the greatest being that can be "thought," it means that there are various perfections or qualities that God has to a degree no creature possibly could, qualities that are supremely admirable. But to say that such a being exists is to say that there really is something which is supremely admirable. And that is not one more admirable quality among others. Is it greater to exist in reality as well as in the mind? Of course, incomparably greater. But the difference is not a conceptual one. And yet the argument seems to treat it as if it were"as if the believer and the nonbeliever could not share the same concept of God. Clearly they do. They disagree not about the content of this concept, but about whether the kind of being it describes really exists. And that seems beyond the power of merely conceptual analysis, as used in this argument, to answer. So question 3, we think, really does invalidate this form of the ontological argument. Modal Version Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm developed this version of the ontological argument. Both find it implicitly contained in the third chapter of Anselm's Proslogion. 1.The expression "that being than which a greater cannot be thought" (GCB, for short) expresses a consistent concept. 2.GCB cannot be thought of as: a. necessarily nonexistent; or as b. contingently existing but only as c. necessarily existing. 3.So GCB can only be thought of as the kind of being that cannot not exist, that must exist. 4.But what must be so is so. 5.Therefore, GCB (i.e., God) exists. Question: Just because GCB must be thought of as existing, does that mean that GCB really exists? Reply: If you must think of something as existing, you cannot think of it as not existing. But then you cannot deny that GCB exists; for then you are thinking what you say cannot be thought"namely, that GCB does not exist. Possible Worlds Version This variation on the modal version has been worked out in great detail by Alvin Plantinga. We have done our best to simplify it. Definitions: Maximal excellence: To have omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in some world. Maximal greatness: To have maximal excellence in every possible world. 1.There is a possible world (W) in which there is a being (X) with maximal greatness. 2.But X is maximally great only if X has maximal excellence in every possible world. 3.Therefore X is maximally great only if X has omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in every possible world. 4.In W, the proposition "There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being" would be impossible"that is, necessarily false. 5.But what is impossible does not vary from world to world. 6.Therefore, the proposition, "There is no omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being" is necessarily false in this actual world, too. 7.Therefore, there actually exists in this world, and must exist in every possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being. The Argument from Time and Contingency 1.We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies. 2.Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility. 3.Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything. 4.Then right now nothing would exist. For 5.If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed"literally"nothing at all. But 6.From nothing nothing comes. So 7.The universe could not have begun. 8.But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But 9.If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So 10.There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. 11.Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being. 12.This absolutely necessary being is God. Question1: Even though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of existence? Reply: The two cases are not really parallel. To step outside your house on a given day is something that you may or may not choose to do. But if nonbeing is a real possibility for you, then you are the kind of being that cannot last forever. In other words, the possibility of nonbeing must be built-in, "programmed," part of your very constitution, a necessary property. And if all being is like that, then how could anything still exist after the passage of an infinite time? For an infinite time is every bit as long as forever. So being must have what it takes to last forever, that is, to stay in existence for an infinite time. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence. And this sort of being, as Aquinas says, is called "necessary."