Christian Apologetics Alliance

answering seekers, equipping Christians, and demonstrating the truth of the Christian worldview

  • About the CAA
    • Statement of Faith
    • Leadership and Ministries
      • Blog Leadership
    • Authors
      • Write for Us
    • Join the CAA
    • Friends and Partners
      • How to Partner with the CAA
    • Donations
  • Resources
    • CAA Chapters
      • CAA Chapter Leaders and Locations
        • CAA Huntsville Chapter
          • CAA Huntsville Chapter – Local Resources
      • Churches: Host a CAA Chapter
      • Chapter Application Form
    • CAA Speaking Team
    • CAA Community
    • Apologetics for Parents
    • Apologetics Bloggers Alliance
    • CAA Catechism
    • Apologetics Certificate Programs
    • Christian Apologetics Search Engine
    • Events | Ratio Christi
    • Ask the Alliance
    • Media
      • Logos
      • Banners
      • Wallpaper
  • EQUIPPED: The CAA Quarterly
  • Contact Us

Armchair Proof For Existence Of God

October 21, 2014 by Prayson Daniel

Socrates Death IDoes a being that is God1 exist? Before we can disagree on whether or not a being that is God exists, we need to agree on what a being that is God is. There cannot be any disagreement unless there is an agreement on what is that is disputed.

What is a being that is God? A being that is God is a being that there could not be other than that which nothing greater nor equal could be conceived2. Such a being, if exists, must exhibit maximal perfection. Therefore, a being that is God, borrowing Alvin Plantinga’s insightful words, is a being “having an unsurpassable degree of greatness—that is, having a degree of greatness such that it’s not possible that there exist a being having more.” (Plantinga 2002: 102 emp. removed).

My first premise in my attempt to answer the dispute of whether or not a being that is God exists, is thus:

(1) If a being-that-is-God exists then that being-that-is-God could not be other than that which nothing greater (or equal) could be conceived.

Anselm of Canterbury (1033—1109) argued that, if there was such a being then it is absurd to hold that such a being exists in our thoughts alone but not also in reality. According to Anselm, both atheists and theists can agree with (1) (Anselm 2009). Atheists would argue that such a being exists in our minds alone. Theists, however, would argue that such a being exists both in our minds and in reality.

Does a being that is God exist in our minds alone or both in our minds and in reality? It is metaphysically impossible for a being that which nothing greater could be conceived to exist in our minds alone. A being that exists only in our minds has causal power only in our mind while the being that exists both in our minds and in reality has causal power both in our minds and beyond. A being that which nothing greater could be conceived that has causal power both in our minds and beyond is greater than a being that which nothing greater could be conceived that has cause power in our minds alone. But there cannot be a being that is greater than that which nothing greater could be conceived. Therefore, a being that which nothing greater could be conceived must exist both in our minds and in reality.

Further more, a being that which nothing greater could be conceived must not only exist both in our minds and in reality, but must also exist necessarily in all possible states of affairs. A being that which nothing greater could be conceived cannot be a being that is metaphysically possible for it to fail to exist, namely contingent being. Otherwise, caeteris paribus, a being that is metaphysically impossible for it to fail to exist, namely necessary being, would surpass the greatness of that which nothing greater could be conceived, which is absurd. Therefore:

(2) If x is that which nothing greater could be conceived, then x must possess necessary existence3.

From (1) & (2), it seems that an affirmative answer could be offered to the question, “does a being that is God exist?”.

(3) If a being that is God exists, then a being that is God exists necessarily.

(4) If it is possible that a being that is God exists, then a being that is God actually exists.

(5) It is possible that a being that is God exists.4

(6) A being that is God actually exists.

This appears to be a valid argument for existence of such a being. Is it also sound? As far as I know, all its premises are more likely true than their negation. I welcome opponents, both theists and atheists, to show me otherwise. Is this a persuasive argument for existence of a being that is God? No. It is not. My aim in presenting it is not so much to persuade atheists to reconsider their position on the ontology of a being that is God per se. I do not believe in God because of such arguments. So why present such argument, you may wonder. My goal is to show that belief in God, a being that which none greater can be conceived, is rationally justified. Monotheists  can (and do) have rational reasons to believe in such a being.

* Yujin Nagasawa is the first to use the tag ‘armchair proof’ referring to ontological arguments.

Anselm, S., (2009). Proslogium; Monologium; Trans. Deane, S. N. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Plantinga, Alvin (2002) God, Freedom & Evil. First published by Harper and Row., 1974. Reprinted 2002.

[1] I used a-being-that-is-God to distinguish between the ontology of God with the epistemology of God. Yahweh, following Jews and Christians, is epistemically understood to be that being that is God, while Allah, according to Moslems, is thought to be such being.

[2] This understanding of the being that is God is accepted by most monotheists (Jews, Christians, Moslem &c.,)

[3] Even though we grant that existence is not a predicate, necessary existence is.

[4] Unless there is inner contradiction with the notion of a being that is God, it appears possible that such a being exists. Atheists would have to argue that it is impossible for such a being exists.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Arguments for God, Ontological Argument

Connect

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

What Interests You?

  • The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Hell
  • Apologetics Methods, Tactics, & Logic
    • Incarnational Apologetics
  • Arguments for God
  • Science, Reason, and Faith
  • The Reliability of the Bible
    • Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
  • The Historicity of Jesus & the Resurrection
  • Worldviews & World Religions
    • Evaluating Islam
    • The New Atheism
    • Post-modernism, Relativism, and Truth
  • Imaginative Apologetics
    • Fiction Book, Movie, & TV Reviews
  • Contemporary Issues
  • Youth and Parents
  • Full List of Categories

Archives

Christian Apologetics Alliance is a Top 100 Christian Blog

Unity Statement

In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity. The Christian Apologetics Alliance (CAA) is united in our Statement of Faith. The CAA does not, as an organization, have positions on many of the doctrinal or theological debates that take place within the church. Our primary concern is to promote the gracious, rational defense of the central claims of Christianity and the critique of opposing systems of thought. The CAA joyfully welcomes Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and diverse Protestant believers, and we are committed to treating all these traditions with respect in our community.

Copyright © 2011 - 2020 Christian Apologetics Alliance