Classical Argument # 4 - The Ontological Argument

The last major classical argument that I'm going to look at is the Ontological Argument.  The word ontology refers to the study of being or existence.  This argument was first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in 1078 in a written prayer called "Proslogion."  Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." The argument goes if God did not exist then it would be possible to conceive of something greater which is a contradiction and therefore God must exist.  Most people think this is some sort of trick with word play, but interestingly almost every major thinker in the history of philosophy has dealt with this argument.  While Anselm's version has largely been abandoned, some modern versions have resurrected the argument and today it is not only alive but surprisingly flourishing. 

For this argument, we are defining God as the "greatest possible being."  As the greatest possible being, God is by definition a necessary being.  A necessary being is by definition a being that must exists if its existence is possible.

#1 If it is possible that God exists, then God exists

#2 It is possible that God exists

#3 Therefore, God exists

"You cannot be serious!" is probably what you are thinking, but the argument might surprise you even if it does not convince you.  The argument is valid, meaning the conclusion follows from the premises.  The only way to argue against the conclusion is to challenge the premises.  Almost everyone, including most atheists, would agree with premise #2 (at least initially).  So the whole argument falls on premise #1.  But as stated above, if God did exist He would be the greatest possible being, and the greatest possible being would have the attribute of necessity, and something that is necessary exists if it's existence is possible.  Sounds like a stretch? It it is interesting that this is relatively uncontroversial because one definition simply leads to the next.  But if premise #1 is true, then the only way to deny the argument is to go back and deny premise #2.  An opponent of the argument must show that the concept of God is incoherent or otherwise impossible. Otherwise, the argument is sound and the conclusion is true. Or at least, so goes the argument.

Strengths:

• Most skeptics would say that God probably does not exist.  But to say that God probably does not exist is just to say that God possibly exists and therefore concedes premise #2.
• The argument makes the issue black or white - God's existence is either true or impossible. 
• If successful, the argument poses a few interesting situations.  For instance every agnostic alive would have to believe that God exists in order to be consistent with agnosticism, thereby contradicting himself.

Weaknesses:

• The argument is very abstract (and silly to some) and consequently hard to take seriously.
• It is easy to deny premise #2, which is what most opponents of the argument do.
• The argument does not argue for Christianity as revealed by Jesus, but only for the greatest possible being.

Bible References:

• Psalm 14:1, 53:1, 145:3

If successful this argument leaves you with the greatest possible being.  This greatest possible being would have every great-making property.

Do you think this argument is successful?  What are some common objections?  Perhaps you have a question.  Feel free to leave a comment so that I can respond and not be bored at work!

Abortion - is it Wrong?

The election is done, but I thought now is as good a time as ever to share an argument against abortion that I heard from Greg Koukl.  So this is a temporary break away from the chain of classical arguments that I've been posting.  However, the argument is still in deductive form and which means that the conclusion relies on the truth of the premises. It is simple:

#1 It is wrong to kill humans for the reasons that people give for abortions.

#2 An abortion kills a human.

#3 Therefore, it is wrong to do an abortion.

As a reminder the argument is deductive and I think it is also valid, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. The question then is are the premises true?  Premise #1 should be obviously true.  A few reasons that are given for why abortions should be legal are:

• An individual's rights for personal and private choice in a free society
• Inability to support a child 
• Genetic defects
• Rape or incest 
• Unwanted pregnancies lead to ruined and unhappy lives for both the mother and the child

Now at this point I'm not talking about abortions yet.  All I am saying is that none of these reasons are good reasons for killing another human being. For instance, it does not make sense to argue that my father can kill me because he has "rights for personal and private choice in a free society" or because he has become unable to "support a child."  It should be obvious that it is wrong for anyone to kill another human for any of these reasons.  Now consider premise #2. If it is true that a fetus is a human being, then the conclusion follows and abortion is wrong.  In fact, it is not just wrong, it is bona-fide murder. So what is the unborn?  If the fetus is not a human being, then no justification is necessary.  Bernard Nathanson, a medical doctor who co-founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (but later became pro-life), states:

    "There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole."

Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and a pro-choice advocate, says:

    "There is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being."

Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at University of Descartes says:

    "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Even if you think there's too much scientific speculation for the average person to know for sure (which is not the case),  we can still ponder the question of when life begins.  Is it at consciousness? Is it at birth? Is it when the "thing" becomes self-dependent or fully developed?  All of these things seem arbitrary.  If it is consciousness, what about unconscious babies?  If it is at birth, then what does a few feet of distance from inside to outside the womb have to do with making you a person? If it is self-dependence or full development, then no one becomes a person until their early twenties.  No one argues that it is okay to terminate a living baby five minutes after it is born. But what is the defining difference about the same baby six minutes earlier, or six months earlier, that makes its termination permissible?  The only defining moment of a person's life that can be pointed to as their definite beginning of life is conception.  But if that is correct then premise #2 is true.  If premise #2 is true, then the conclusion follows and abortion is morally wrong.

All of the quotations above can be found at http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimon