An Inquiry Regarding the Necessity of the
Existence of God
Jonathan Holmes
For modern philosophy, the argument for the existence of God really began with a few philosophically-minded theologians. Some theologians were concerned with articulating an argument for the existence of God that did not rely on traditions and texts. Christian scholars constructed their arguments to defend their beliefs against competing religions and skeptics alike. These arguments were eloquently put forth by figures such as Anselm of Canterbury, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Rene Descartes.
The original philosophical arguments for the existence of God are generally categorized as either ontological or cosmological. Ontological arguments are a priori, they claim that the existence of God is evident through the idea of God. Cosmological arguments are characterized as a posteriori; they claim that the existence of God is somehow evident in the world around us. Some philosophers also make a distinction of a third argument, the teleological. Teleological arguments are based on the idea of intelligent design, but because they are a posteriori arguments, they may be considered a type of cosmological argument.
Before we attempt to counter these arguments, it would probably be wise to offer further clarification of the arguments themselves. Anselm of Canterbury first put forth the ontological argument in his Proslogion where he wrote of God as “that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought.”
Anselm then goes on to construct a reasonably simple argument which, even in its simplicity, is somewhat difficult to explain, but his conclusion is that, if God exists as an idea, than he must exist in reality. A few hundred years later, Descartes supports this train of thought in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes writes that his idea of God is perfect, and because Descartes himself is imperfect, only God could be the source of his idea of God. One could draw some parallels between Descartes’ ontological argument and certain cosmological arguments, but we will come to that shortly.
The cosmological argument was originally articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. His thoughts consist of five specific points: Motion begets motion, but this must have started with an “unmoved mover”. Cause leads to effect, which in turn becomes a new cause, and so on. This must have begun with an ultimate cause. If something necessarily exits then it must actually exist. Characteristics are flawed, and therefore, perfection must exist. The universe seems to exhibit design, then there must have been a designer.
Various philosophers who came after Aquinas did take up support for one or more of these concepts. The idea of a designed universe seems to have been the most popular of the five. Of course, there is an obvious parallel between the supposition that necessary existence is linked to actual existence, and the ontological suppositions of Anselm. There is an even stronger link between the cosmological supposition that perfection must exist and the ontological ideas of Descartes. But, the primary difference between the cosmological arguments and the ontological arguments is that the cosmological arguments rely on experience.
Much of the strength of the ontological arguments seems to lie in their simplicity and thoughtful rhetoric. Both Descartes and Anselm, while trying to prove that God exists, describe a characteristic of God. Neither of them are discussing, simply, God. Both of them are describing God as a perfect being. Why? Why does God necessarily have to be perfect?
Anselm’s Proslogion also includes a response that was articulated to him by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. Gaunilo argues that if “that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought” must exist in reality, then what if you replace “that” with an island? By Anselm’s logic, if one thinks of an island which is greater than any other island that one could conceive of, then that island must really exist. Anselm countered by stating that God is very different from an island, and islands are something which we know through experience. But why is God different from an island? Is it only because islands can be known through experience and God cannot?
What do we make of the idea of perfection? Perfection by itself would, by definition, fit into this construct of Anselm’s logic. Perfection is also convenient in that it does not exist anywhere in the world as we know it. But why would this lead us to believe that perfection does exist in reality? And, if God does exist, then how can anyone make claims of certainty and proof as to the characteristics of God? Both of these questions provide an excellent segue into a critique of the cosmological arguments. However, there remains a valid question that should be put forth against the ontological argument. Descartes makes mention of the possible existence of a demonic deceiver. He describes how a demon could be tricking our senses, skewing our thoughts and manipulating our minds. Why, then, could this same demon not be the source of our idea of God, our concept of perfection, or our association of God with perfection?
Thomas Aquinas started the cosmological argument with the concept of motion. Motion in one object causes motion in another object, which causes motion in yet another object, and so forth. According to Aquinas, this chain of motion must have started with an unmoved mover. We could ask why, but then that would most likely lead us into a discussion involving physics. Perhaps a more intriguing question would be, “Why do we find it necessary that everything have a beginning and an ending?” This leads us straight into the second point, which invokes the concept of causation, the supposition that causation operates as a chain and that chain must have started with an ultimate cause. Again, we are left with a supposition that assumes a necessity of beginning and ending.
The third point which Aquinas makes regarding cosmology involves necessary existence and actual existence. This point could be convincing except that, since our inquiry revolves around necessity, it might prove sensible to simply move on to the next argument. The fourth point brings us back to the concept of perfection. However, we should keep in mind that this argument, which involves perfection, is different than the ontological argument because it is a posteriori. Aquinas writes of the characteristic flaws of the world. He describes our tendency to ascribe a hierarchy to things which we are comparing. Thus, because of this hierarchy, something must exist which exhibits perfection. But why must the existence of imperfection lead us to the conclusion of the existence of perfection?
Perfection and imperfection are concepts, not actions requiring equal and opposite reactions. If one idea exists in reality, why must we believe that its antithesis also exists in reality? Do all ideas require an opposing idea? Is the world really so black and white? And if not, what does the gray entail and imply? And what do we make of the fifth and final point which Aquinas puts forth, that the world exhibits design, and therefore there must have been a designer? Many literate and eloquent persons have taken up points for and against this argument throughout the ages, so we will keep this simple. If person A looks at the world and sees design and person B looks at the world and sees mere chance, disorder, and mayhem then why are person A’s views considered more valid? Even if one were able to ascertain that there were more person A’s in the world than person B’s, being in the majority does not make one right.