A Different Ontological Proof

[Duder]

.

Greetings, all -

I found this in an old shopworn copy of Norman Malcom's Essays and Lectures (1962). Follow along, if you can, and I'll describe Malcom's proof. It's rather elegant, I think!



Definition

This is a logical argument that seeks to demonstrate the necessary existence of God. As with all such arguments, we need to define the object we are arguing about. Let's start by adopting old St.. Anselm's definition of God:


.............."God is the being greater than which nothing
..............can be conceived."


In other words, you cannot imagine anything greater than God. If you can imagine something greater than the thing you are thinking about, then you are not thinking about God. God is the greatest conceivable being.



The Argument

One statement we can make about God that is obviously true is, "He either exists or He doesn't." Surprisingly, there are some things we can deduce from analyzing these two alternatives.

If God does exist, then he must have always existed, and he will have to exist forever and ever. He never came into being at some time in the past, and he will never stop existing. This would have to be true, because of our definition. When we say "God", we mean the greatest conceivable being. And since an eternal being would be greater than a temporary one, our God would have to exist at all times, if he exists at all. In other words, God would be necessary.

If God does not exist, then he never did exist and he never will. Why? Again, it follows from our definition of God as the greatest conceivable being. The greatest being would be eternal. So if the greatest being exists, he cannot exist at some times and not others. If he doesn't exist now, he never did and he never will. In other words, if God does not exist, then he is impossible.

God, then, is either necessary or impossible, One and only one of those alternatives is true. If we could eliminate one of those alternatives, then the other one would have to be right. So let's try to eliminate one.

Consider how we know it when a thing is impossible. If I were to claim that a herd of elephants is at this moment stampeding through the White House, would that be impossible? No. It would be very unlikely, but you can imagine a scenario where it could happen. It is not impossible. But what if I told you that my solid yellow socks are navy blue? Is that impossible? Yes. My claim is self-contradictory and logically absurd - so there is zero chance of it being true. It is impossible.

What that illustrates is, for a thing to be impossible it must be self-contradictory and logically absurd. Otherwise, it could happen.

Now, consider the claim "God exists". Is that impossible? Perhaps you think it is very, very unlikely that God exists. But even so, I think you will have to acknowledge that there is nothing self-contradictory or logically absurd in the claim "God exists". He could exist. Since the claim affirming his existence is not absurd, God is not impossible.

We said above that God is either necessary or impossible. We have just shown that God is not impossible. The inescapable conclusion is that God is necessary. He cannot not exist.


..............God is either necessary or impossible.

..............God is not impossible.

..............Therefore, God is necessary.

.
.

 

[Drew]

Hello Duder:

Welcome to the forum. Your post is thought-provoking and clear.

I have always found this argument to be somewhat suspect because it seems to define God into existence - surely God's existence is not merely an unavoidable consequence of the application of logic? Of course, what I have just said expresses a sentiment, it is by no means a counter-argument. So I will have to think about this some more....

 

[DivineNames]

If God does exist, then he must have always existed, and he will have to exist forever and ever. He never came into being at some time in the past, and he will never stop existing. This would have to be true, because of our definition. When we say "God", we mean the greatest conceivable being. And since an eternal being would be greater than a temporary one, our God would have to exist at all times, if he exists at all. In other words, God would be necessary.

I believe that defenders of this version of the O.A. have tried to support the idea that God's existence would be necessary on two grounds- God's eternity, and God's ontological self-sufficiency, (existing through and from himself).

A criticism made, is that these two attributes don't actually prove that God would have necessary existence. In possible worlds talk, it may be that in some possible worlds God has always existed, always will exist, and exists through his own essence. But in some possible worlds, God has never existed and never will. So it doesn't (it is claimed) follow that God would have necessary existence.

Personally, I think it plausible that if a Deity has ontological self-sufficiency this *may* involve existing necessarily, but we are off into some very abstract territory I think.

 

[DivineNames]

Now, consider the claim "God exists". Is that impossible? Perhaps you think it is very, very unlikely that God exists. But even so, I think you will have to acknowledge that there is nothing self-contradictory or logically absurd in the claim "God exists". He could exist. Since the claim affirming his existence is not absurd, God is not impossible.

How can you really assess whether "God" is a coherent concept? Isn't the reality of God supposed to be "unknowable", "incomprehensible"? To the extent that an assessment can be made, I believe that there are atheist philosophers who would indeed challenge the claim that "God" is a consistent or intelligible concept.

The premise that is wanted here, looks to be very much question-begging.

 

[Duder]

,

Hello Duder:

Welcome to the forum.

Thank you, Drew. Noob that I am, your welcome is reassuring.

I have always found this argument to be somewhat suspect because it seems to define God into existence...

Believe me, I sympathize. These ontological arguments always sound as if they are pulling the wool over one's eyes. That might be the case with this one.

However, I don't think we have really defined God into existence. The definition simply serves to clarify what we mean exactly by the term God for the purposes of our argument. The problem of whether he exists is not settled at the time of definition. He either exists or he doesn't - we don't know yet.

... - surely God's existence is not merely an unavoidable consequence of the application of logic?

Maybe it is! That is what this argument claims to show, at least. Beginning from the certain and true statement that "God either exists or else he does not exist", it examines those possibilities to see what follows from them, in light of our definition that tells us what we mean by God. It ends up logically ruling out one of those possibilities, leaving the other one standing.

Of course, what I have just said expresses a sentiment, it is by no means a counter-argument.

Again, I sympathize. I feel as if the argument can't really prove what it claims to prove. But finding the flaw, if there is one, is not so easy.

So I will have to think about this some more....

I will look forward to that!

Thanks,

Duder

.