Considering the Ontological Argument

by Evan Stewart, June 12, 2006

Although the ontological argument at times seems to be an unreasonable argument ending with a jump to the final conclusion, I find upon further meditation that the argument is a reasonably solid and even air tight argument that stands on the very foundation of reason and logic and operates within the rules of rational thought.

The traditional idea of God seems to come from the almost instinctive human notion that something greater than man must be in existence in some form or state of being. Since God is by definition that which is greater and the greatest Being, by definition existence is an inherent attribute or characteristic of the greater and greatest, or in other words perfect, being. The argument maintains that God is the only being which inherently owns the attribute of existence and this is the point at which the argument becomes seemingly irrational or possibly even circular by seemingly arguing that God exists because God exists. However, the argument is difficult to fully grasp at this juncture because the common objection that the idea of an existing being does not necessitate existence stands on the comparison of the ontological argument to another argument of an object similar to God.

For example, Gaunilo’s argument that the idea of a perfect island does not necessitate the physical existence of a perfect island is certainly a true argument but unlike the argued definition of God, the perfect island is perfect in an entirely different sense and also physical existence is not an inherent property of the island as it is with the perfect God. Any comparison brought to oppose the ontological argument seems to immediately stand as inferior because no other being or object is by the nature of its definition required to exist. Just as any object claiming to be a triangle must by definition contain three sides and hold the sum of 180 degrees, by definition of being absolutely perfect God must exist.

Nevertheless, even here an instinctive objection still cries that an idea does not mandate existence. However, as Descartes argues, if by definition a triangle must contain only three sides and all three angles must equal two right angles, and that this conclusion is undeniably true even if a triangle was never to be found in existence, then by definition God must exist because by logical conclusion the essence of God includes existence.

Even Aquinas’ argument that man cannot fully comprehend or even know God’s essence does not suffice because the ontological argument does not suppose the full comprehension of God’s essence but only the slightest working understanding. As with the concept of infinity one cannot fathom fully an infinite sequence for the moment an infinite sequence is isolated the sequence ceases to be infinite and immediately becomes finite. However, this limit of the human mind does not keep us from working with the concept of infinity. Likewise, the limited human understanding does not disqualify us from grasping the slightest understanding of the essence of God. Furthermore, Descartes objection to Aquinas’ counter is at least compelling and at most conclusive in that since we are able to argue for the idea of God’s essence to the point of concluding that it is in some sense infinite in every regard indicates that we are able to understand in some way and by some reason the slightest notion of God’s essence. Descartes soundly argues that man surely cannot comprehend the fullness of God’s essence, but since man is able to argue such an idea as certain existence obviously we are able to understand to some degree the essence of God. Therefore, either we can grasp a workable knowledge of God on our own or God grants us this knowledge by putting it within our minds. Either way, the fact remains true; we can understand to a degree something about God’s essence and at least enough to conclude that inherent to God’s essence is existence.

Therefore, if one is to disregard this most basic and logical and even rational proof for God’s existence, then one must doubt the most basic rules of logic and reason and ultimately conclude that we can know nothing about reality or ourselves and we are left in a position of ever wondering if we truly exist. The notion or idea of God is not held merely as some desperate attempt to find purpose in life, but the ontological argument utilizes the rules of reason and so if the existence of God is not accepted, then the ontological argument betrays the laws of thought and understanding and since the formulation of this most basic argument utilizes the very law of reason to its fullest extent the disapproval of the ontological argument seems to only conclude ultimately the disapproval of the law of reason and thus leave us in complete and utter philosophical darkness.

The ontological argument only proves God does indeed exist but nothing more outside the idea that God is genuinely perfect in every way. This argument takes us to the edge of philosophical study and leaves us at the door step of theological study urging us to knock at theology’s door if we are to know any other fact about God. Theism is the only option open for the reasonable thinker. Surely, the atheist must admit error and the agnostic is left only with theism because the question of God’s existence has been answered in the positive.