In his book, Reasonable Faith, Dr. William Lane Craig lays out the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. The argument was first formulated by Anselm in the 11th century, and it has been defended by Descartes and Plantinga, among others. It was born out of Anslem’s search for an argument that would not only prove the existence of God, but would also showcase the biblical attributes of deity, namely God’s utter supremacy to anything whether real or imagined.
The very concept of God is that of the Supreme Being, who is superior in every way to any and every other possible being. To conceive of God is to commit to three positions. The first commitment is that God as the Supreme Being is superior to any other conceivable being. Any concept of God which can be improved upon has not yet reached the level of “supreme,” and is thus not God. The second commitment is that to conceive of the Supreme Being is to recognize His actual existence, since a God that truly exists is superior to a God which is only imaginary. Stated another way, a painting that is completed is superior to one that has not yet begun and exists only in the mind of the artist. The third commitment is that to conceive of the existence of God as the Supreme Being is to admit that it is inconceivable that He does not exist.
Commitments two and three, while connected, are not identical. The former regards the superiority of a being that actually exists versus one who does not. Existence is superior to non-existence. The latter regards the superiority of a being whose non-existence is inconceivable versus one whose non-existence is conceivable. A being whose non-existence is inconceivable is superior one whose non-existence is conceivable. Commitment two seems to be more of an ontological consideration while commitment three seems to be more of an epistemological consideration.
I not only find the Ontological Argument difficult to understand, but I also find it difficult to accept. It seems to lack sufficient persuasive power. The argument tends to rest on the definition of the word “God.” If the word “God” is defined as the Supreme Being in existence, then how does it follow that such a definition is self-proving? The skeptic or atheist could simply deny the definition along the lines of positing that “Hinduism argues for millions of Gods, each of whom cannot be superior to all the others, for this would be illogical.” Moreover, human conceptions of God are flawed, even those of the most world renowned theological scholars, since none has a perfect knowledge. Thus, it could be argued, any human definition of God is flawed, at least to some degree, and thus cannot represent the ultimate superiority in Godness. For all the atheist knows, the definition of God as the Supreme Being may just be nothing more than a human construct.
A second problem is the notion that God exists because it is inconceivable that He does not. Couldn’t one argue, “Since the concept of multiverse is superior to the concept of a universe, and since I cannot conceive of any space-time realm that would be superior to a multiverse, and since I cannot conceive of a multiverse not existing (because I have sensory perception that I live in it), a multiverse must exist.”
I am a born again Christian with two degrees in theology. I witness regularly, live a Christian life, serve in missions, and fully believe in God. I understand and accept the Teleological, Cosmological, and Moral arguments for the existence of God. I just cannot see the logic of the Ontological argument as sufficiently persuasive for a Christian, much less an atheist.
