The Ontological Argument, famously articulated by St. Anselm and later refined by philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, is one of the most abstract and profound arguments for God’s existence. Often misunderstood, it’s dismissed by some as wordplay or circular reasoning, but its logical rigor makes it a cornerstone of philosophical theology.
Modal Ontological Argument
Here’s a refined syllogism for the argument, addressing common misconceptions:
- Premise 1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
- Premise 2: If a maximally great being exists, it exists necessarily (in all possible worlds).
- Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists necessarily, it exists in the actual world.
- Conclusion: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Alvin Plantinga explains: “This formulation of the Ontological Argument demonstrates that the existence of God is either necessarily true or necessarily false; there is no middle ground.”
Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974).
1. Misunderstanding the Argument as “God Exists Because I Can Imagine Him”
Critics often misrepresent the Ontological Argument, claiming it suggests that imagining God makes Him real. However, the argument does not hinge on imagination but on the logical implications of the concept of a maximally great being.
St. Anselm writes: “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. And that being must exist not only in the understanding but also in reality.”
St. Anselm, Proslogion, Chapter 2.
2. Thinking It Relies Solely on Imagination
This misconception assumes that the Ontological Argument is purely about mental concepts. Instead, it uses logical necessity to show that if God’s existence is even possible, then God must exist in reality.
Alvin Plantinga explains: “The Ontological Argument is not a proof by imagination; it is a demonstration of the logical necessity of God’s existence.”
Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974).
3. Dismissing It as Circular Reasoning
Some critics accuse the argument of assuming God’s existence to prove it. However, the argument does not assume God exists but instead explores the logical implications of the concept of God as a maximally great being.
William Lane Craig clarifies: “The Ontological Argument does not assume what it seeks to prove; it is a rigorous logical exercise based on the definition of God.”
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
4. Claiming It’s Just Word Games
Many dismiss the argument as verbal trickery. However, the Ontological Argument is deeply rooted in modal logic and the metaphysics of existence, making it far more than a linguistic exercise.
Norman Malcolm writes: “The Ontological Argument is a serious philosophical inquiry into the nature of existence, not mere verbal manipulation.”
Norman Malcolm, Anselm’s Ontological Argument (Philosophical Review, 1960).
5. Ignoring Its Modal Logic Formulation
The classical form of the argument is often criticized, but Alvin Plantinga’s modal logic version strengthens it by demonstrating that if God’s existence is possible, then God must exist in every possible world, including ours.
Plantinga explains: “The modal version of the Ontological Argument shows that the existence of God is either necessarily true or necessarily false, with no middle ground.”
Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
6. Misrepresenting Necessary Existence
Critics often misunderstand the concept of necessary existence, equating it with physical necessity. In the Ontological Argument, necessary existence refers to existence in all possible worlds, transcending contingency.
Stephen T. Davis writes: “Necessary existence is a metaphysical property that applies uniquely to a maximally great being.”
Stephen T. Davis, God, Reason, and Theistic Proofs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).
7. Ignoring Atheist Philosophers Who Take It Seriously
Many critics dismiss the argument without realizing that prominent atheist philosophers, such as Graham Oppy and Bertrand Russell, have engaged deeply with it. Russell even admitted, “It is easier to feel convinced that the argument is fallacious than to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.”
Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1945).
8. Overlooking the Distinction Between Concept and Reality
Some argue that concepts in the mind do not necessarily translate to reality. However, the Ontological Argument specifically applies to God, whose concept as the greatest conceivable being necessitates existence.
St. Anselm writes: “If it exists in the mind alone, it cannot be the greatest conceivable being, for one existing in reality is greater.”
St. Anselm, Proslogion, Chapter 2.
9. Misusing Kant’s Critique
Immanuel Kant’s argument that “existence is not a predicate” is often cited to dismiss the Ontological Argument. However, modern proponents like Alvin Plantinga have reformulated the argument to address this critique.
Alvin Plantinga writes: “Kant’s critique, while influential, does not undermine the modal version of the argument, which focuses on necessary existence.”
Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974).
10. Assuming It’s Irrelevant to Modern Philosophy
Many dismiss the argument as outdated, ignoring its influence on modern discussions in metaphysics, modal logic, and the philosophy of religion.
Alvin Plantinga notes: “Far from being irrelevant, the Ontological Argument raises profound questions about existence and necessity.”
Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
11. Confusing the Ontological Argument with Other Theistic Arguments
Critics often conflate the Ontological Argument with the Cosmological or Teleological Arguments. Each argument addresses different aspects of God’s existence. The Ontological Argument focuses on God’s nature as a maximally great being, not on empirical evidence.
William Lane Craig explains: “The Ontological Argument addresses the metaphysical necessity of God, distinct from cosmological or design-based reasoning.”
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
12. Claiming “The Opposite Could Be True”
Some skeptics argue that if one can assert God’s existence based on the Ontological Argument, one could just as easily argue for God’s nonexistence using the same reasoning. However, this objection misunderstands the logical structure of the argument. The Ontological Argument is asymmetrical because it deals with necessary existence, which cannot be applied to nonexistence in the same way.
- If a maximally great being exists, it exists in all possible worlds.
- Nonexistence, however, cannot be a necessary property, as it implies contingency. A being cannot “necessarily not exist” without contradicting the very definition of necessity.
Alvin Plantinga explains: “The opposite of the Ontological Argument cannot be formulated coherently because necessary existence is a unique property that cannot be mirrored in necessary nonexistence.”
Norman Malcolm adds: “To argue for necessary nonexistence is to misunderstand the nature of modal logic. Existence and nonexistence are not logically symmetrical.”
Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974).
Norman Malcolm, Anselm’s Ontological Argument (Philosophical Review, 1960).
13. Dismissing It as Abstract and Irrelevant
Critics often reject the Ontological Argument as too abstract or disconnected from reality. However, metaphysical arguments often deal with abstract concepts to explore foundational truths about existence.
Norman Malcolm writes: “Abstract reasoning is the essence of metaphysics and philosophy. The Ontological Argument is no exception.”
Norman Malcolm, Anselm’s Ontological Argument (Philosophical Review, 1960).
14. Ignoring the Broader Philosophical Implications
Some skeptics fail to see how the Ontological Argument connects to broader philosophical discussions about necessity, possibility, and the nature of existence. The argument is not just about God but about how existence is understood.
Stephen T. Davis writes: “The Ontological Argument challenges us to think deeply about existence itself and the metaphysical foundation of reality.”
Stephen T. Davis, God, Reason, and Theistic Proofs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).
15. Assuming It Is Only a Christian Argument
Although the argument is most famously associated with St. Anselm, its implications extend to broader theistic traditions. Philosophers from various religious and philosophical backgrounds, including Islamic thinkers like Avicenna, have engaged with similar ideas.
Peter Kreeft remarks: “The Ontological Argument transcends denominational boundaries, addressing the nature of God in all classical theistic traditions.”
Peter Kreeft, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensées (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993).
Why the Ontological Argument Matters
The Ontological Argument is a profound exploration of existence, necessity, and maximal greatness. While abstract, it forces skeptics and believers alike to grapple with fundamental questions about reality.
Key Contributions
- Revolutionizing Metaphysics: It challenges assumptions about the nature of existence and introduces the concept of necessary existence.
- Cross-Cultural Relevance: The argument extends beyond Christianity to other theistic traditions, demonstrating its universal philosophical importance.
- Logical Rigor: Its use of modal logic has advanced philosophical discussions on existence and necessity.
A Final Challenge to Skeptics
The Ontological Argument requires careful engagement with its premises and logical structure. As Bertrand Russell admitted, “It is easier to feel convinced that the argument is fallacious than to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.”
St. Anselm writes: “Indeed, we believe You are a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (London: Allen & Unwin, 1945).
St. Anselm, Proslogion, Chapter 1.
Tom's Theology Blog 
Leave a comment