Pints With Aquinas - 17: Is the ontological argument for God's existence sound?

Episode Date: July 26, 2016

[Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. - Anselm, Proslogium. --- Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us theknowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident. Objection 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident. Objection 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truthdoes not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anythingtrue, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident. On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentallyadmitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident. I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in theessence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not inspace." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence ofGod, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects. Reply to Objection 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch asGod is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturallyknown to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are whoimagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else. Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist. Reply to Objection 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us. ST. I, Q, 2. A, 2. --- For Further Study: - http://www.strangenotions.com/is-the-modal-ontological-argument-for-god-a-sound-proof/ - http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/anselms-ontological-argument.html ---   SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 17. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? In today's episode, we'll ask St. Thomas the question, what do you think of the ontological argument? Welcome back to Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. And my goodness, are we going to be talking about a humdinger today? The ontological argument for the existence of God, and we'll see what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say about it. But before we do, a little word about what the ontological argument is for the existence of God. There are three basic categories

when it comes to arguments for the existence of God. We could say there are cosmological arguments, and these are the arguments that Aquinas employs, and these begin with what we observe in the world around us. Then there are what's been called moral arguments that begin from within the person. So we have without, within. Now in the third category, there's only one argument, and that's this one we'll be talking about today, the ontological argument. And this attempts to prove the existence of God by the very definition of God. And this was first proposed by Saint Anselm of Canterbury. And it's interesting to note that Aquinas rejects this argument. And it's interesting for a couple of reasons. One,

because the ontological argument is probably the single most famous argument for a couple of reasons. One, because the ontological argument is probably the single most famous argument for the existence of God. I think the second reason it's interesting is that many critics of St. Thomas accuse him of being under the thumb of the church, as it were. They say there's no need to look seriously at Aquinas' philosophy because, look, all he was was an apologist for the church and whatever the church happens to think is true. Well, first of all, that commits the genetic fallacy in which we seek to invalidate a person's conclusions based on how they originated. But secondly, that isn't the case. If it was the case, Aquinas would have accepted Anselm's ontological argument, or at the very least, not publicly rejected it. So let's first

look at what Anselm has to say about the ontological argument, okay? So, here we go. Anselm, who, by the way, was the Archbishop of Canterbury and lived in the 11th century, had this to say in very famous work of his called the Proslogium. He says, quote, even a fool, when he hears of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding, and assuredly that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone, then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone,

the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one that which a greater can be conceived. But obviously, this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. How you doing? That was pretty intense. I would strongly recommend if you didn't get that right away, maybe, you know, back up and listen to that again. Here's how the argument is formulated in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It has six premises or five premises in the conclusion. All right. So, if that was kind of difficult

to understand, let's see if we can follow this one. Premise one, it is a conceptual truth, or so to speak, true by definition, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. That is the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Premise two, God exists as an idea in the mind. Premise three, a being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. Premise four, thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God, that is, a greatest possible being that does exist. That's what we mean by God. Premise five, but we cannot imagine something that is greater than God, For it is a contradiction to suppose

that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Six, therefore, God exists. All right, let's take a look at what Aquinas has to say. By the way, this is going to be pretty text heavy today. That is, I'll be reading quite a bit from the Sumer and as you just saw there from Anselm. Partly because I don't want to make an idiot of myself and start speculating too much because as soon as you start talking about this argument, it's very easy to, you know, misspeak and then, you know, make a big mistake. Okay. So, this comes from the Summa Theologica, first part, question two. All right. This has to do with the existence of God. And this is before Aquinas gives his five proofs for the existence of God. And he asks whether the existence of God is self-evident. So, let's first read primarily what he has to say. He says, no one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident, as the philosopher states concerning the first principles of demonstration.

But the opposite of the proposition, God is, can be mentally admitted. The fool said in his heart, there is no God. Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident. Aquinas goes on. A thing can be said to be self-evident in either of two ways. On the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us. On the other, self-evident in itself and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject. Okay, let's just stop here and review some basic logic and grammar. In logic, when we talk about subject and predicate, these terms are used in the same way we use them in grammar. So, if we say

Socrates is a man, Socrates is the subject and man is the predicate. So, predicate is what we're saying about the subject, all right? So, he says, to back up a little, a proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject. Okay. So, if I say a triangle has three sides, for example. Okay. Back to Aquinas. So, Aquinas gives us an example here as a quote, man is an animal. Okay. For animal is contained in the essence of man. If therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all, as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. So, let me just give an example here. I don't think Aquinas gives it later. So, here's an example, whole and part. Okay. So,

it's self-evident. Once you understand whole and once you understand part, to say the whole is greater than the part is self-evident. You can't say it. If you seriously say that the part is greater than the whole, and you're, of course, talking about the same thing, then you just don't understand what part or whole means. Maybe you speak another language, or maybe you're insane. But it's self-evident that the whole is greater than the part. Okay. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject

of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says, that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as the incorporeal substances are not in space. are not in space. Therefore, I say that this proposition, God exists, of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject. Right? What does he mean here? The predicate is the same as the subject. Well, God and existence. God exists, so exists is the predicate of the subject, God. So, to say God exists, all right, he's saying, yeah, in and of itself, it's self-evident because the predicate is the same as the subject, right? And this gets back to what we spoke about in a previous episode where Aquinas says that God's essence, what he is, is that he is. His essence is existence.

is that he is. His essence is existence. His existence, his whatness is thatness. We could put it that way. Oh, okay. Here we go. Now, because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us, but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us through though less known in their nature, namely by effects. All right. End quote. So Aquinas rejects the ontological argument. He doesn't mention Anselm by name, but he's referring to it as we'll see in one of the objections that he refers to, but he's certainly referring to it as we'll see in one of the objections that he refers to, responds to. But he wants to say, no, no, no, no, put it this way. And I actually tweeted this the other day. See if you know what I mean. Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, who wrote God Delusion, Richard Dawkins thinks he knows what God is and rejects him. Aquinas knows he does not know what God is and believes. Say that again.

Richard Dawkins thinks he knows what God is and rejects him. Thomas Aquinas knows he does not know what God is but believes. So, we could say Aquinas is agnostic about God's essence, but not his existence. Okay? So, we cannot know what God is. God is infinitely beyond us. We can know that God exists. How? By his effects.

And this is what I meant earlier when I talked about cosmological arguments. Okay, let's look at the three objections Aquinas responds to. Objection one, it seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now, those things are said to be self-evident to us, the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regards to first principles. But as Damascene says, the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all. Therefore, the existence of God is self-evident. How does Aquinas respond to that? How does Aquinas respond to that? Well, here's how.

To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists. Just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching. For many there are who imagine that man's perfect good, which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasure, and others in something else. Okay, two more objections that Aquinas sets up for himself. Objection two, those things are said to be self-evident, which are known as soon as the terms are known. Now, pause. You'll notice this is essentially what Anselm is saying. If we understand what is meant by God, we'll see that he exists. All right. So, in objection to Aquinas writes further, those things are said to be

self-evident, which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the philosopher says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole, oh, look at this, Aquinas is using that example I just used a moment ago. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word God is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. You'll see here he's using the same words of Anselm. The objection continues. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word God is understood, it exists mentally. It also follows that it exists actually. Therefore, the proposition God exists is self-evident. That deals directly with Anselm's argument,

and here's how Aquinas responds. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word God understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought. And this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist. So, Aquinas begins by saying, look, not everyone necessarily means by God or understands God to be that which nothing greater can be conceived. And even if everyone understood God to mean that, we can't go from definition to reality. Let's quickly see the third objection. This one's quite quick. Objection three, further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever

denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist. And if truth does not exist, then the proposition truth does not exist is true. And if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself. I am the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore, God exists is self-evident. Wonderful. I mean, I'm sure you've all heard this, the old kind of relativistic statement that nothing is true. What do you mean nothing? Well, yes, there is no objective truth. There is no absolute truth. And you should always respond, are you absolutely certain about that? Is that absolutely true that there is no absolute truth? And if it is, then it's true, then something is truth, therefore truth exists. And this objection here would say,

and since, you know, of God, we can say, here's the way, the truth and the life, therefore, since we cannot deny that truth exists, we cannot deny that God exists, therefore God exists. cannot deny that God exists, therefore God exists. And Aquinas literally gives a one-sentence response to this. The existence of truth in general is self-evident, but the existence of a primal truth is not self-evident to us. So there you are. Now, you should be aware of the fact that Anselm formulated more than one ontological argument. It went through something of a, you know, he reshaped it as it was criticized. And this has just been something that every philosopher, it seems to me, at one point or another has dealt with. And it's a fascinating discussion. One of the modern theologians that's dealt with this

argument and has reshaped it would be, what's his name? Alvin Plantinga, who is a reformed Calvinist theologian. And he has created a modal ontological argument for the existence of God. By the way, when we talk about modal logic, this just simply means it has to do with possibility and necessity. Let me just briefly lay out his argument really, really, really quick before we end today. And then I just say, you know what, I'll throw a couple of links in the description of this podcast so you can learn more from Alvin Plantinga and others as to why they think there is still merit in the ontological argument if we reshape it in different ways. So here's how Plantinga basically puts it, okay?

Premise one, it's possible that God exists, right? It's possible. I think we'd agree with that, wouldn't we? Well, premise two would be like, okay, if it's possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds. And by the way, when philosophers talk talk about possible worlds they're not talking about other solar systems other planets other universes they just are talking about a full description of reality or um a complete description of the way things may have been. So, for example, it's possible that, you know, tigers be purple. It's not possible

in any world that a triangle has four sides. Okay, it's just a simple description there. But, by the way, this is disputed among philosophers whether or not it's helpful to talk about disputed among philosophers whether or not it's helpful to talk about other possible worlds or not. But anyway, just to go back to Plantinga there, that second premise is that if it's possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds. Premise three, if God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds. Premise four, if God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world. Premise five, if God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world. Premise five, if God exists in the actual world, then God exists. Conclusion, therefore God exists. Now, sometimes when people hear this argument, they think it's a joke or

like a trick, but this is something that is, you know, respected among many philosophers, is respected among many philosophers, even atheist philosophers. Like I'm thinking of Peter Millikan, who is a professor of philosophy at Oxford. So even if it sounds like a game at first, if you're interested in learning more, as I say, I'll throw some links up in the description of this podcast. So what do you think? Are you done listening to Pints with Aquinas? Have we just totally crossed the line here? But to sum up, of course, Aquinas rejects the ontological argument, but I am aware of certain people who find it very convincing. Maybe you're one of them. If you like the podcast, please rate it. If you'd like to

write to me and ask me a question or maybe see what Aquinas has to say on a particular thing you can email me at matt at pints with Aquinas dot com and that'll do I hope you're well until next time God bless you