This is part 2 of the Arguments for God series. This will focus on the ontological argument for God’s existence. “Ontological” comes from the Greek word ontos (“being”). This is the argument from the idea of a Perfect or Necessary Being to the actual existence of such a Being.[1]” This argument was first posited by Anselm, however Immanuel Kant is the one who gave it the name by which it is known.
The argument is structured this way:
(1) God is by definition an absolutely perfect Being.
(2) Existence is a perfection.
(3) Therefore, God must exist. If God did not exist, then he would be lacking one perfection, namely, existence. But if God lacked any perfection, then He would not be absolutely perfect. And God is by definition an absolutely perfect Being. Therefore, an absolutely perfect Being (God) must exist.[2]
Several terms need to be defined; it’s important to have a clear understanding regarding the definitions of “God,” “perfect,” and “existence.” God in this argument is defined as the spaceless, timeless / eternal, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, uncaused, simple / indivisible, personal, relational, creative, moral Being as found in the Bible. This distinction is important because it is the Judeo-Christian God that is referred to in the argument, not the Muslim ‘Allah,’ the LDS concept of god (a finite being that obtained godhood), one of the Hindu pantheon of deities, etc.
The term perfect is defined as, “To be whole or complete; also referred to as “mature.” Throughout the Bible, especially in the OT, God is referred to as being “perfect” (Ps. 18:32). He is complete and lacks nothing. In addition, the “ways” of God are perfect, implying that not only is God perfect in His essence, but He is perfect in His actions (2 Sam. 22:31).[3]” Oxford Dictionary defines existence as, “the fact or state of living or having objective reality.”
This argument has been presented in a variety of forms over the past 1.000 years (as challenges and objections have arisen, these have been answered by rewording / reworking the argument):
First form (God as an absolutely perfect Being)
1. God is, by definition, a Being, greater than which nothing can be conceived.
2. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
3. Therefore God must exist in reality. If he didn’t he wouldn’t be the greatest being possible.[4]
Second form (God as a Necessary Being)
1. God is, by definition, a Necessary Being.
2. It is logically necessary to affirm what is necessary to the concept of a Necessary Being.
3. Existence is logically necessary to the concept of a Necessary Being.
4. Therefore, a Necessary Being (= God) necessarily exists.[5]
Aquinas’ variation
1. God is, by definition, a Being, greater than which nothing can be conceived.
2. What exists both mentally and actually is greater than that which exists only mentally.
3. Therefore, God must exist actually, for once the sentence “God exists” is understood, it is seen to be a self-evident proposition.[6]
Descartes’ variation
1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a concept what is essential to its nature (e.g., A triangle must have three sides.).
2. But existence is logically necessary to the nature of a necessary Existent (i.e., Being).
3. Therefore, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent does exist.[7]
With the foundation and background established, let us explore the argument itself. This argument is extremely straightforward and honestly doesn’t require much explanation. Premise 1 states that God (Judeo-Christian) is absolutely perfect. Premise 2 identifies existence as a characteristic of perfection. The conclusion follows that for God to be perfect, He must exist.
One way this argument may be attacked is the notion of God being perfect as declared in Premise 1. Some may cite their perceived shortcoming(s) regarding how they define God. This is where a joint understanding of terms is vital. If one disagrees with the idea of God being perfect, it’s fair to ask questions as to why the person feels this way and what justifications he / she has for that position. Many people have a misconception of God which does not match God as He is described in the Bible. This misconception may fall short of perfection where God as characterized in Scripture does not.
This argument is a fairly simple one, however it is possible to get very deep in theological and philosophical discussion and debate when testing the claims. As imposing and intimidating as that may seem, I am confident that the argument stands (it has managed to do so for almost 1,000 years). Remember, as a Christian, we are to love God with our minds (Matt 22:37, Luke 10:27). Part of using our minds to love and worship God is in learning and reasoning through ideas such as these. That is part of the reason I created the blog to begin with. Blessings!
~In Christ!
[1] Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 34). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
[2] Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (p. 34). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
[3] Strong, T. (2003). Perfect. In C. Brand, C. Draper, A. England, S. Bond, E. R. Clendenen, & T. C. Butler (Eds.), Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (p. 1275). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.
[4] Geisler, N. L. (1999). Ontological Argument. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 554). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
[5] Geisler, N. L. (1999). Ontological Argument. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 555). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
[6] Geisler, N. L. (1999). Ontological Argument. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 555). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
[7] Geisler, N. L. (1999). Ontological Argument. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (pp. 555–556). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Way Truth Life Apologetics 
Leave a comment