Philosophy: Two Paradoxes of God's Existence

 

Today’s post is on two philosophical paradoxes of God’s existence: one that proves it, and one that disproves it.  The first paradox is called The Ontological Argument. . .

St. Anselm was an 11^th century philosopher who used logic and reasoning to prove God’s existence.  He invented The Ontological Argument, which is a dialogue between him and a character named “The Fool”.  The Fool is an atheist who understands the concept of God, but doesn’t believe that God actually exists.

The argument is based off of two givens: that God is “the being of which nothing greater can be thought” and that existence in reality is superior to existence in the mind.

The Ontological Argument:

Anselm:

If God existed he would be the greatest thing

that could possibly be—“the being of which

 nothing greater could ever be thought”, correct?

The Fool:

Yes.

Anselm:

And the concept of God exists in

your mind, correct?

The Fool:

Yes, He exists in my mind, not in reality.

Anselm:

But which is greater: something that exists in

reality, or something that exists solely in your mind?

The Fool:

Something that exists in reality is greater than

something that exists solely in my imagination.

Anselm:

So “the being of which nothing greater can

be thought” would be greater if it existed in reality,

 and not just in your mind, correct?

Fool:

Yes.

Anselm:

But the being of which nothing greater can be

thought cannot be greater than it already is!  That

would contradict its very nature as “the being of

which nothing greater can be thought”!  Therefore,

God exists not only in your mind but in reality as well.

Yikes, that was a lot to take in. . .

So let’s break it down.  Here is what we need to know:

    1. That God is the being of which nothing greater can be thought, meaning that we can’t possibly think of anything greater than God.  He’s it.  He’s just the best. 

   2. According to The Fool, God exists in the mind, but not in reality, meaning that though we may believe in God, he merely exists in our imaginations and not in the real world. 

   3. Both Anselm and The Fool agree that an object that exists in both the mind and reality is greater than an object that exists solely in the mind.

The conclusion of these three statements: God would be greater if he existed in both realms, as opposed to solely the realm of thought.

The Fool agrees with the three numbered statements and ultimately the underlined fourth statement, but not all statements can be true at once.

If 1 and 2 are true, then 3 can’t be true.

If 2 and 3 are true, then 1 can’t be true.

If 1 and 3 are true, then 2 can’t be true.

No matter how you look at it, the statements cannot all be true at the same time, rendering the Fool’s argument invalid, and therefore proving God’s existence.

And now for Epicurus’ argument. . .

 

Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher who, like Anselm, was interested in the concept of God.  However, Epicurus used logic and reason to disprove God’s existence. . .

Epicurus’ Four Statements:

1.     Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? 

Then he is not omnipotent.

2.     Is he able to prevent evil, but not willing? 

Then he is malevolent.

3.     Is he both able and willing? 

Then whence cometh evil?

4.     Is he neither able nor willing? 

Then why call him God?

Epicurus’ Four Statements rely on three assumptions:

1.     The God we believe in is all-powerful.

2.     The God we believe in is good.

3.     Evil exists in the world.

So the basic questions raised by the Four Statements are

If God has the will to prevent evil and the power to do so, why is there evil?

If God doesn’t have the will or power to prevent evil, then why is he a God?

So what do you guys think?  Which philosopher do you agree with? Both?  Neither?  Explain your reasoning. . .

Dialogue of Ontological Argument Paraphrased from The Philosophy Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained