Ready to Re-engage: How Mastering the Ontological Argument can Empower Your Faith Talks

In our previous post, we delved into the domain of Christian apologetics: Dogmas.

Twelve essential Christian doctrines that must be true in order to be saved and six of them must be believed in order to be saved.

One of the six is monotheism. The unyielding belief in a single, eternal God.

Sounds straightforward, right? Yet, here’s the curveball — ever tried to reason why God must exists? Others have done it and come up with an answer only through abstract reasoning.

That answer is the ontological argument.

A Headache Worth Having

Hold up, though. I see that raised eyebrow. “Abstract reasoning? What the heck does that even mean? Ontological? Sounds more like a headache waiting to explode.”

And honestly? Kinda.

You’re thinking, “Do I really need this complication in my life?”. Well, first off, heck yes, it’s okay to feel a bit swamped!

But here’s the thing: Remember why you started this journey? I do. You’ve got this burning desire to not be run over again like a frozen deer on a highway at midnight when your faith is challenged.

You’re yearning for something more than just “because the Bible tells me so”.

Here’s the real scoop: More than a headache this argument is a mind-stretching profound truth. God also wired your brain to wrestle with it. You have what it takes to understand it.

So, yes, it’s complex, but isn’t the most valuable stuff always a bit challenging?

Here’s the promise: Dive in with me, and not only will you grasp this intriguing argument, but you’ll also see how they can revolutionize and empower your faith conversations. Together, we’re going to transform that nervous energy into confident, faith-filled dialogue.

Ready to re-engage? Alright, deep breath. We’re going in!

Anselm’s Legacy: The Birth of the Ontological Argument and Its Impact

Long before our modern age, there were thinkers who grappled with some seriously hefty ideas about God’s existence. Among them, Anselm of Canterbury is the first.

In the 11th century, he proposed the original ontological argument, which was, at its core, a pretty revolutionary idea.

For starters, ontology means the study of being. What makes a being such a being.

For example, what makes a triangle a triangle? A simple definition might be “a polygon with three sides and three angles”.

Can a triangle have three sides and two angles and still be called a triangle? Impossible.

So, the ontological argument is an argument that shows that God exists by conceptual analysis of what entails for God to be God.

Imagine a time when most proofs for God’s existence revolved around what we can see in the world. Then comes Anselm, saying, "Hold on. Let’s use pure reason."

Inspired by Psalm 14.1 where it says, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God”, he reasoned that for the fool to know that there is no God, he must know first what the concept of God is.

But if he does, then he will know he’s saying foolishness.

He proposed that if we can conceive of the greatest conceivable being (which would be God), then that being must exist, not just in the mind, but in reality.

Anselm’s argument has been summarized as follows.

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists. [1]

Though there are some philosophers who defend the original version of the argument to some extent, we aren’t going to use this argument. I’m showing it to you for historical purpose.

The argument didn’t stop at Anselm. Through the centuries, it’s been tinkered with, reshaped, and re-evaluated by numerous thinkers.

Especially in the 20th century with Norman Malcom, Charles Hartshorne, Kurt Gödel and Alvin Plantinga. It’s like a classic car that enthusiasts keep modifying for new races.

In this post, we are going to use Plantinga’s ontological argument. Some consider it “the most sophisticated in the long history of the ontological argument” and “the best chance of being cogent”. [2]

But before learning about the argument, we need to first understand a bit about the semantics of possible worlds in modal logic S5.

Oh yeah!

Here comes the headache.

Beyond Our Reality: Exploring Possible Worlds Semantics

What is modal logic?

Modal logic introduces ways to talk about how a statement might be true or false. The two most common modalities are necessity and possibility.

In modal logic there’s something called possible world semantics. This is a tool, a way to speak, to detect the truth value of a statement. This can change depending on the “world” you’re in.

Think of these “possible worlds” as alternate realities or various ways the world could have been (or might be). These aren’t parallel worlds to ours, nor part of the multiverse theory, but rather a maximal description of reality that isn’t actually true.

There is, however, a possible world which has a maximal description of reality that is actually true. We call this the actual world, our world.

The idea is that there are infinite possible worlds, and while something might be true in one world, it might not be true in another.

If you’ve ever daydreamed about a world where fire-breathing dragons, unicorns, and elves exist, you’re on the right track.

Such a world could have existed. It’s possible. There’s no logical impossibility to their existence. The concepts of “fire-breathing dragon”, “unicorn” and “elves” aren’t incoherent.

Now, try to imagine a world where circle triangle exists. Can’t, right?

Try with the smell of red. Nothing?

Maybe a numberless world? No?

You can’t because these concepts are incoherent by themselves. Such a world, with a conjunction of such propositions is impossible. They are necessarily false independently and together.

No possible world would have such proposition as true. It’s necessarily false, meaning it’s false in every possible world.

By contrast, the proposition Hillary Clinton is the 45th president of the United States. It’s false in the actual world (our world) but could be true in some possible world.

When a truth is dependent on certain conditions or causes, we say its contingently true (or false).

When a truth is dependent by its very nature, as self-evident, we say its necessarily true.

You got it? Don’t worry if you didn’t. It took me a while to grasp it.

Plantinga’s Paradigm Shift: A Modern Twist on the Ontological Argument

Analytic Philosopher Dr. Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga, a 20th-century philosopher, gave this age-old argument a revamp. Instead of solely leaning on the idea of the “greatest conceivable being,” he took a different, slightly modern route using modal logic S5.

First, God is defined by Plantinga as a maximally great being.

By “maximally great” he means a being that has excellent making properties to their max expression (he call this “maximally excellent”).

Excellent making properties (also called great making properties) are properties that are better to have than to lack like wisdom, power and benevolence to their max expression (namely, omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence).

A being that has maximal excellence in every possible world it’s what Plantinga call “maximal greatness”.

With these definitions now established, let's get right into Plantinga’s version of the ontological argument.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Premises from 2 to 6 has been deemed uncontroversial by theist and non-theist philosophers. Premise 1 is the troublemaker.

The issue here is what warrant exists for thinking premise 1 is true.

Similarly, to say that God exists in some possible world is to say the proposition God exists is true in some maximal description of reality.

Plantinga’s main point? If it’s possible that a maximally great being exists in one of these possible worlds, then it must exist in all of them, including our own.

It’s tempting to scratch your head and think, “Alright, why is it necessary for this being to exist in every possible world?” Well, for a being to be maximally great, existence across all possible worlds is part of the deal.

This is the S5 in modal logic which has an axiom [3] that says, “If it is possible that something is necessary, then it’s necessary”.

An oversimplified version of Plantinga’s argument can be stated as follows:

1. It’s possible that God exists.
2. Therefore, God exists.

A being that only exists in some possible world is less great than one that exists in all possible world, including ours, the actual world.

Think about it. Which God is greater?

One that exists in all possible worlds or one that exists in some possible worlds?

Plantinga’s Perspective: The Bar of Success

Though Anselm wanted to create the single knockdown argument for the existence of God, he couldn’t.

Not even Plantinga believes his version is successful in achieving it. In fact, he thinks his argument places the bar for success too high. He says,

“the ontological argument provides as good grounds for the existence of God as does any serious philosophical argument for any important philosophical conclusion.” [4]

He believes that his version succeeds in presenting belief in God as a rational and logically consistent belief.

Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm’s argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion [5]

Again, he’s not trying to prove that God exists, but to show that it is rational to believe in God.

Craig’s Counterargument: Raising the Bar

Philosopher and theologian, Dr. William Lane Craig

Still, Dr. William L. Craig seems to believe that Plantinga verdict was place to low. It seems that Craigs believes that Plantinga had a crucial confusion.

In dealing with this issue, it’s crucial that we distinguish clearly between metaphysical and epistemic possibility. The first concerns what is really possible; the second concerns what is consistent with what we know. One is tempted to say, “It’s possible that God exists, and is possible that he doesn’t exists!” But this assertion is true only with respect to epistemic possibility: for all we know, God may exist, or he may not exist. On the other hand, if God is conceived as a maximally great being, then his existence is either necessary or impossible, regardless of our epistemic uncertainty. [6]

When one has this distinction in mind, then a non-theist can’t disregard the argument’s premise and conclusion just because he has doubts about the claim’s rationality.

Take the following example,

Either a square circle exists, or it doesn’t.

No one will say, “Well it is possible that a square circle exists, and it is possible that it doesn’t exists!”. Any logically incoherent concept won’t exist in any possible world.

Similarly, either a necessary being exists (God) or he doesn’t.

No one will say, “Well it is possible that a necessary being exists, and it is possible that he doesn’t exists!”. It is logically impossible for a necessary being to possibly not exists.

This is why in Dr. Craig’s view, the atheist not only needs to show that God doesn’t exists. He needs to show that the existence of God is impossible!

How? Showing that the concept of God is as incoherent as a circle triangle or a married bachelor.

Adapting to the Conversation: Choosing the Right Approach

So, there are two ways this argument can empower your discussion with non-believers.

1. Rational Justification Approach. Take it as Plantinga intended. It’s not about trying to prove God’s existence definitively; instead, it demonstrates that belief in God is not irrational. This can be a game-changer in dialogues with skeptics who often portrays the concept of God as a caricature, product only of the human imagination like superman or Santa Claus. In this case, you are merely showing them that your belief in God is as rational as their unbelief and can’t just dismiss it as a childish false belief.
2. Burden of Proof Approach. Take it as Craig sees it. The argument does shows that God exist by pure conceptual analysis. You can show that the non-believer has the burden of proof to demonstrate not only that God does not exist but that his existence is impossible as an incoherent concept. You’re no longer in a defensive position but can actively engage in constructive dialogue, inviting them to explore the concept of God’s necessity.

Approach 1: Rational Justification Approach

When to Use It:

1. When Focusing on Intellectual Respect: This approach is particularly useful when engaging in discussions with non-believers who are intellectually respectful but simply skeptical of religious beliefs. It helps you establish common ground by showing that belief in God is a rational and logical position. Use this approach when the non-believer is genuinely interested in understanding your perspective and is open to rational arguments.

2. Building Bridges with Skeptics: It’s a valuable strategy for building bridges with skeptics who may view religious belief as irrational or childish. By demonstrating the rationality of your belief, you can challenge their preconceived notions and invite them to engage in a more open-minded dialogue.

How It Might Look:

In a conversation with a skeptical non-believer, you might say, “I understand your doubts about the existence of God, but I want to show you that my belief is not just a product of wishful thinking.

The ontological argument, as Alvin Plantinga explains, offers a rational framework for understanding God’s existence.

It doesn’t definitively prove God’s existence, but it does show that belief in God is not irrational. Let’s explore this argument together.”

Approach 2: Burden of Proof Approach

When to Use It:

1. When Confronted with Strong Atheism: Use this approach when engaging with non-believers who are firmly committed to atheism and actively assert that God does not exist. It’s a more assertive approach that shifts the burden of proof onto the non-believer by challenging them to demonstrate the impossibility of God’s existence as an incoherent concept.

2. Defending Theological Necessity: If the conversation moves towards discussing the concept of a necessary being or the nature of God, this approach can be effective. It helps you assert that the concept of God as a maximally great being is not just a philosophical idea but a necessary one, and it places the onus on the non-believer to disprove this.

How It Might Look:

In a discussion with a strong atheist, you could respond, “I appreciate your position, but I’d like to challenge you to consider that the existence of God is not a matter of mere possibility.

According to modal logic and Plantinga’s argument, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible as an incoherent concept.

If you assert that God’s existence is impossible, it’s essential to demonstrate how the concept of God is incoherent. Let’s delve deeper into the concept of necessity and explore this further.”

In summary, the choice between these two approaches will depend on the nature of the conversation, the openness of the non-believer, and the specific points being discussed.

It’s not an either-or situation, and you can use both approaches strategically to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogues about faith and the ontological argument.

Unveiling Part 2: Beyond Doubts and Parodies

You might be feeling a mix of emotions right now.

You’ve journeyed through the complex terrain of the ontological argument, and it might seem like a formidable intellectual task.

Perhaps a hint of skepticism lingers, leaving you pondering the argument’s validity. It’s perfectly natural.

You might be thinking, “Is it really that simple? Can an argument like this stand against the critiques and parodies and won’t undermine its force?”

Well, here’s the reassuring truth: skepticism and questioning are essential aspects of faith and growth, and we are going to deal with them in part 2 of this article.

We’re going to analyze common objections, including Kant’s critique, Gaunilo’s Island parody, and other objections.

We’ll scrutinize them, explore the nuances, and provide you with the tools to navigate through the intricate web of philosophical discourse.

Remember, faith is a journey, and it’s not about silencing doubts, but about engaging with them.

We’ll equip you with the knowledge and insight to navigate these conversations with confidence, empowering your faith talks and your spiritual journey.

So, stay tuned. We are just warming up.

1. Anselm: Ontological Argument for the God’s Existence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu)
2. Willian Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed, p.183.
3. An axiom is a statement or proposition that is true without requiring any external proof. It is self-evident.
4. Alvin Plantinga. Reason and Belief in God. pp. 18–19.
5. Alvin Plantinga. The Nature of Necessity, p. 221
6. Willian Lane Craig. Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed, p.185.