The Ontological Argument's Weakness
It is surprise that the book entitled, Classical Apologetics,1 uses
Anselm's2 Ontological argument in its defense of natural theology. This is surprising because most classical
apologists feel that this is fundamentally an unsound argument. First, a priori arguments
fail because of the insurmountable difficulty of going from the realm of ideas to the
realm of existence. By contrast, theistic arguments that are a posteriori (reasoning
from effect to cause) begin in existence and end in existence. Hence, in the latter
approach, the existence of God is proved when the arguments are sound. Second,
"God" is a term used in the ontological argument which remains unknown or
devoid of meaning without using the cosmological argument. In natural theology "God" has to be
defined through a knowledge of His effects, i.e. His creation. Hence, the ontological
argument begs the question because, when a Christian uses this argument, his own view
of "God" is hidden within its premises.
Thomas Aquinas notes this weakness in his Summa Contra Gentiles.
What is more, granted that everyone should understand by the name God
something than which a greater cannot be thought, it will still not be necessary that
there exist in reality something than which a greater cannot be thought. For a thing
and the definition of a name are posited in the same way. Now, from the fact that that
which is indicated by the name God is conceived by the mind, it does not follow
that God exists save only in the intellect. Hence, that than which a greater cannot be
thought will likewise not have to exist save only in the intellect. From this it does
not follow that there exists in reality something than which a greater cannot be
thought. 3
Professor Holloway discusses this fallacy too.
Obviously, when a person hears the word "God" and forms
some idea or meaning for this word in his mind, it by no means follows that therefore
God must exist in reality. To begin with, even among those who would grant that God
exists, not all would say that their concept of him is that of being greater than
which we cannot imagine or conceive. The pagans, for example, who held the existence
of many gods, did not conceive of God in this way. And some who have held one God
thought that he was the world, or nature, and so forth. So that it is simply not true
that when a person hears or thinks of the word "God," he thinks of something
greater than which cannot be conceived.4
The cosmological argument begins with the reality of existent
things, i.e. the creation. It argues from effects (contingent beings) to the ultimate
cause (a necessary eternal being). This manner of approach to God's existence and His
attributes is supported in scripture. The scriptural starting point is "the
things that are made." This is what all of mankind sees and provides a
beginning point to argue a posteriori to God's existence and His nature. To
begin in the realm of Platonic Ideas fails, because ideas alone don't cause existence. For example,
intellectually knowing accounting
principles (realm of ideas) does not mean there exist coins (realm of existence) in an
accountant's pocket.
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, (even) his
everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: Rom 1:20 (ASV)
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his
handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Ps 19:1-3 (KJV)
Last edited May 27, 2001
|
Argument