The Ontological Argument is Sound!

In this video Gavin Ortlund gives an overview and defense of Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God.

Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Church.

SUPPORT:

FOLLOW:

MY ACADEMIC WORK:

PODCAST:

DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM

CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:

00:00 Introduction
02:44 Overview of the Ontological Argument
06:33 Anselm's Formula
07:44 Defining "Greatness"
08:19 Existence "In the Mind"
10:32 Anselm's Purpose in the Proslogion
15:15 Making Sense of the Ontological Argument
20:18 The Resilience of the Ontological Argument
27:45 The Ontological Argument Elucidates God's Nature
31:28 The Ontological Argument Introduces Philosophy
33:51 Parody Arguments
45:00 Kant's Objection That Existence is Not a Predicate
58:39 Logical Coherence?
59:27 Equivocation?
1:00:18 Defining God Into Existence
1:01:52 Begging the Question
1:03:57 Assuming a Hierarchy of Greatness?
1:05:25 Drawing Out the Implications

[TaterTheBeloved]

Gavin, idk if you’re gonna see this but I hope you understand how much of a light you are for us Protestants especially when arguing from history, the good you’re doing is amazing for the Gospel and witnessing to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy im so thankful for you.

[danielklassen]

The gravity of all those big heavy books is pulling Gavin closer and closer to the bookshelf with each video

[whitesoxMLB]

Stayed until the end. I am now requesting my promised heart reaction.

[matheusferreira]

Hey gavin, i constantly read DesiringGod and saw your article today, just wanted to thank you, i’ve been in a dark season the last year and a half and it has been rough and your article was very heart warming and discipline-inspiring. Thank you

[joeengers]

Who could bring themselves to leave before the end?! So good. I wish more Christians would engage in and with philosophical inquiry. You do a tremendous job with your ministry. Thank you!

[philipmartyn]

When I first heard this argument, I thought it was ridiculous. Plantinga humbled me, if he took it seriously, I thought I should consider it. Thank you for this excellent helpful video. You do great work.

[RealAtheology]

This was a fantastic video, Dr. Ortlund! Thank you for putting this together. I appreciated your taking a substantive (yet still accessible) approach to the argument in just over an hour. I'd like to see this type of content more from Christian apologists. Even as an Atheist, I agree that the OA should not be dismissed, and even if it is not sound, it's a fascinating argument not only due to its history but also the wide variety of philosophical topics (modality, existence, semantics, etc) it involves when you investigate it. I fear one reason that it is commonly dismissed and derided by Atheists online is that they often encounter it in the context of when apologists frequently use it as a bludgeon to show Atheism as irrational or foolish. Rarely is the argument presented online in the careful, subtle, and interesting way you've proposed it here, especially as an invitation to a more enchanting metaphysics. I'm hoping this video can contribute to an increased civil dialogue on the argument.

In the spirit of such dialogue, I want to offer a brief pushback on behalf of the "fool" who denies the argument's conclusion. One issue here is that Anselm equivocates between the mere concept of God (as a maximally great being) and the positive instantitation of such a concept. What Anselm wants to say is that the fool is conceiving _"not-really-existing being than which nothing greater can be conceived-"_ which is clearly a contradiction in terms of the part of the fool. But as Mackie points out in _The Miracle of Theism_ :

_"But the fool can avoid being caught in this trap. His conceiving of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived is just that: it is no more than is involved in his understanding of the key phrase, an understanding which he shares with Anselm and with any other reasonably intelligent person. He does not need to, and presumably does not, include non-existence within this concept. But, separately, he thinks and says that there is no such being, that this concept is not realized or instantiated, whereas Anselm, for example, thinks and says that it is realized and instantiated. The fool's judgement that this concept is not realized does not commit him to reading non-existence back into the content of that concept, which is what would be needed to involve him in incoherence."_ (pg. 52)

I think Mackie is correct here in that while Anslem wants to hold the fool as conceiving a reductio through his thinking of a maximally great being, and then building non-existence into the concept, we can take a contrary role as seeing the fool distinguishing between the concept and its relation. This point is actually pressed further in a 2004 paper _Anselm's Equivocation_ by David A. Truncellito, which outlines some of the relevant distinctions: _'That is, it is right to claim that the fact that we have a concept of something does not entail its existence. However, this is not, as is traditionally argued, because the domain of conceivability outstrips the domain of existence, so that there are conceivable but nonexistent entities. Rather, it is because concepts and beings are different in kind. Similarly, existence in the understanding and existence in reality are incommensurable. Thus, it is impossible, in principle, for the ontological argument to be sound."_

Finally, I would like to briefly respond to your argument against parody objections. You take the Plantinga line that there is no such thing as an island than which no greater island can be conceived due to considerations about what such an island would look like in terms of intrinsically great properties, but this is too quick. As Oppy points out in his chapter contribution _The Ontological Argument_ :

_"On one hand, greatness for islands involves trading off a whole lot of considerations, including size, ecodiversity, population, and so forth. An island than which no greater can be conceived will not be too large, nor too crowded with palm trees, nor too crowded with people. That there is no intrinsic maximum to size, or number of palm trees, or population provides no reason to suppose that we cannot coherently speculate about islands than which no greater islands can be conceived._

_On the other hand, if that than which no greater can be conceived is to hit intrinsic maxima for every attribute that it has, then those intrinsic maxima must be possibly jointly co-instantiated. But, for example, there is a serious question as to whether something can be both maximally merciful and maximally just. Moreover, there are attributes that do not hit intrinsic maxima that at least some philosophers want to ascribe to that than which no greater can be conceived: for example, that it consists of three persons."_

I think Oppy's points are fairly cogent here in the sense that it seems there can limits to intristic maximums, especially in the context of what a perfect island is meant to be, and that there seems to be tension in terms of what exactly is the greatest being in terms of attributes? Take Divine Simplicity? Is the greatest being one that is divinely simple or not? Is the greatest being timeless, immutable, etc? It seems hard to cash out what exactly intrinsic greatness looks like in terms of God given that there are many different sets of incompatible attributes that it seems some conception of the divine is going to be arbitrary.

Anyway, this was a great video. Thanks again for your excellent work, and looking forward to more of your content here in the future!

[dariabrowczenko]

Wow, I've watched the whole thing by now and still can't quite comprehend it entirely. However, Gavin, you really awoke that interest in me for such arguments. I can see the beauty, but I will definitely need to think about it for many hours. Thank you for your ministry, you really are a source of God's light to this world.

[changjsc]

I wrote a paper recently on the Ontological Argument for my university. It gave me a headache, but it was such a pleasant headache that I shared it with my little sister. She did not enjoy the headache as much as I did. But few other papers have made me meditate more on the very being, attributes, and existence of God himself more, except perhaps my paper on the Eternal Generation of the Son. I feel like that headache comes from trying to cram an infinite God into my finite mind. I love it. Watching this video gave me the same pleasurable headache.

[svenmuller]

You have changed my life in how i aproach other people in love and care, i can't wait to meet you when you come to Munich :)

[ThunderboxMusic]

When you’re a high school junior in the airport watching Gavin talk about when he was a high school junior in the airport…

[samuelblackmon]

Ontological Argument has always been among my favorite so of course I watched through to the end

[claytonweaver]

You should debate Alex Malpass. Would a great one to watch

[bradleymarshall]

Love your work on Anselm! The great medievals are for Protestants too not just Catholics. Watched the whole video and loved it! Probably going to be my go to for introducing the ontological argument to skeptics

[robNObeard]

followed you to the end! thought it was very interesting!!

[AlonzoMuncyReligion-pzyz]

I loved this explanation of the ontological argument. I've always known it was good but was hesitant about using it. Now I think I might use it more.

[MatthewFearnley]

I’m still not convinced, but I enjoyed listening to this.
I wonder if parallel arguments can be constructed that avoid some of the pitfalls of the common parodies.

[iandelossantos]

Skeptics may not be convinced with its conclusion that God exists, through careful scrutiny of the argument it proves that the idea of God is logically coherent. The ontological argument would be the gateway to further investigation. This should make anyone consider God seriously.

[EthanTripodi]

I've watched a lot of videos on the ontological argument but this one by far is the most devotional and thought-provoking. Thank you for doing the hard work of a researcher and pastor at the same time Gavin.

[jtbasener]

Staying up late at night to talk about metaphysical philosophy. Sounds like I am not the only maniac in the world. Also, I am very excited to hear about your take on slavery in the Bible, since I have have had that as a heavyweight on my intellect for some time now. Much thanks, as always!