The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

by Robert Mayhew

Anselm of Canterbury (11th century) was the first to present the ontological argument, purporting to demonstrate God’s existence through a mere analysis of the definition of God. Aquinas rejected the argument, but Descartes revived it. Kant was thought by many to deliver it a death blow, but it continues to be resuscitated. This lecture is an exercise in philosophical detection: Dr. Mayhew will present the argument and then explain Objectivism’s unique reasons for rejecting it as not merely false, but as an absurd rationalization.

Recorded at OCON 2023 in Miami, Florida

Talk copyright: Robert Mayhew

------------------------------------------

Subscribe to ARI’s YouTube channel to make sure you never miss a video:
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:

******

******

[FrancisoDoncona]

I am not a religious man but I have an opinion that you need to consider. A person in their final moments of life. One second he is alive and has conscious thought the next nothing. All the elements are there, all the chemistry is taking place then nothing. Just in reference to the thought process, what was the final failed molecular bond, couldn’t that chemistry gone the other way and life return. Was it just a matter of balancing the equation, did the one reaction end it? Could another have replaced it at the critical moment? Why have ants live for a season only to die, what was accomplished in that time that was critical to the individual, the hive, the species. Why not longer or more robustly. It is brief for all live, what is the point to all the microscopic effort for such little gain? Just a complex multitude of interplaying chemical reactions that can replicate the series of events to grow, evolve, think, decay, but why? Random chance? That level of complexity that works not once but over and over but is fragile and quickly fails to continue. Don’t buy it, something more is there, a reason.

[pavlova]

The premise that existence is a quality of perfection stems I think from the more fundamental premise that what exists in the mind must be impressed by what exists in reality. This is a Platonic idea. If we can imagine a perfect circle, then a perfect circle exists in the world of forms. Not only does this inspire Descartes' trademark argument, but it may also be the inspiration for all ontological arguments.

[alexanderthedecent]

I think the more precise version of the argument contends that a maximally great being could exist in some possible world. If a maximally great being exists in a possible world then a maximally great being must exist in all possible worlds. This list of possible worlds includes the actual world we live in. Therefore God exists in the world we exist in. Not a precise explanation but I'm sure you could Google the exact form if interested

[gabrielduran]

Overall great succinct presentation. However I would have liked to hear more on the modern versions of the ontological argument. Specifically Alvin Plantinga.

[ThePantygun]

The Devil wrote all religious texts. That's the proven argument.

[voluntaryist]

I have NEVER had an idea of god. At 81, I am not "waiting for god", e.g., as a conception or entity. I don't think of, or worry about, or calculate the possibility. Some theists might wonder "why not?" I would answer "why?" From my early childhood, at 7, when I was "introduced" to the word "god" I have not been given a rational definition or explanation of that word. Moreover, I don't assume I have to, or should (to be "nice") pretend to understand what that word means. As I aged, I began to understand that "the word" was extremely important to others. Moreover, that my social interaction needed to take this into consideration. But, this "consideration" was dependent on understanding how the individual was effected by the word, not my understanding of the word. I had come to the conclusion by my teens that some words that people used were used without understanding or definition. I did NOT accept responsibility for defining each and every person's unique internal life. I was concerned with my social interactions, vis-a-vie, my motivations, my wants/needs. I didn't want to be a psychologist.
I accept responsibility for my words, my actions, my consistency, my definitions, my mistakes. I hold others to the same standard. If people are incapable of explaining their beliefs, but refuse to question them or accept responsibility for their actions, or admit they act irrationally, that is on them. I am not going to willingly suffer. I resist. I fight for my right to be me, against their aggression.

[TheDeepening]

You don't know what sour is until the mind defines what sweet is. I was happy when I was young because I had no idea of success and thus no idea of failure. Nothing is good or bad but thought makes it so.

[vinoverita]

This was an excellent lecture.

My only point of disagreement turns on the issue of existence, qua attribute.

The concept existence is not only a collective noun in that it subsumes all entities, but it also subsumes all their attributes, actions, states and relationships. The reason that when asked what we mean by the concept “existence, ” we can gesture toward reality and say “I mean this!” is because everything that is has the quality of existence. If everything was red and we were asked what we mean by “red, ” the same gesture could denote what we mean.

The seeming dilemma is solved by recognizing that the concepts existence and reality both denote the sum total of all things, but reality specifies whether they are ontological or epistemological.

God exists. He’s real. He is *really* an idea of Christian theology.

Reality is all that is, as it is. Rivers, stars, man as ontological entities - and math, logic, unicorns, history, Hamlet as epistemological or psychological existents. They all have being and existence. But not all in the same way.

Binswanger is right that to imagine a polar bear is already to imagine it existing. That’s why Rand argued that every concept presupposes and logically depends on the irreducible concept existence. The concepts phlogiston, unicorn, phoenix all presuppose the concept existence and have no cognitive content without it.

Everything exists because everything has the quality of existence - otherwise you couldn’t know it or discuss it.