Dan Mitu

Oct 12, 2010

Philosophy-Religion 210

The Ontological and Cosmological Argument (Draft One)

At some point every human stops to ask themselves whether there is a God. This popular

question has many answers, two of which are the Ontological and the Cosmological Argument.

These two arguments have their roots set in the medieval period, beginning with St. Thomas

Aquinas (for the Cosmological argument) and with St. Anselm (for the Ontological Argument).

They are the two most common premises for the God debate, though still have their share of

opposition.

The Ontological Argument, first provided by Anselm (1033-1109), is one of few a priori

premises for God. It examines our concept of God’s own nature as a means of justifying his

existence. Throughout St. Anselm’s text, God is referred to as “something-than-which-no-greater

-can-be-thought”. This statement implies that God has all of the greatest qualities that there are

and is a perfect being.

One of these greatest qualities is that God must exist outside of the mind. This is what

Anselm’s argument hinges on. Anselm says that, “For if it (God) exists solely in the mind, it can

be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater” (48). This is because existing is a quality of

the greatest being.

Further into St. Anselm’s premise, he alludes to the Fool from Psalms 13:1 and 52:1, a

skeptic who can not see God’s “face”. He addresses the “fool” by stating that the concept of God

is evident to any rational being. He says, “...when it is so evident to any rational mind that You of

all things exist to the highest degree? Why indeed, unless because he was stupid and a fool?” (49)

Anselm figures that to have any concept of “greatness” implies knowledge of a being “than-

which-no-greater-can-be-thought” thus the fool is a fool.

The cosmological argument, on the other hand, takes an a posteriori stance and was
introduced by St. Thomas Aquinas. The cosmological argument starts with the observation that

the world is in motion. Aquinas argues that because everything needs a cause, and that cause

another (and so on), then at some point there would need to be a first mover which need not be

moved itself. “Therefore it is necessary,” he says, “to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other;

and this everyone understands to be God.” (60)

But using this argument, a problem is run into in which God, who is supposed to be

entirely self sufficient and content, has now done something “extra” (creation). Richard Taylor,

who expands on Aquinas’ argument, addresses this problem with an analogy comparing God to a

flame. On page sixty-six, he starts with an image of a flame radiating beams of light. He says that

the beams come from the flame, as the flame is it’s creator, though the flame itself is not

dependent on the beams. This suggests that God is a creator by his own nature.

Taylor also writes on the idea of a beginning-less existence. He stresses the difference

between the time something has existed and the cause/purpose/reason. He compares this to a

geologist. He says that, “A geologist does not suppose that she has explained why there should be

rivers and mountains merely by pointing out that they are old.” (66) This discredits the idea of a

beginning-less existence because it takes away any grounding it has on explaining some thing's

existence and leaving it, instead, with an explanation for age alone.

The validity of both these arguments are in question. Concerning the ontological

argument, how can a human (an imperfect and limited being) try to understand a perfect being

and use language in order to describe it? All adjectives would fall short and our finite minds

could not possibly begin to understand an infinite concept.

For example, according to the ontological argument God is something-than-which-no -

greater-can-be-thought. Essentially, this perfect being should be independent of anything else.

But to what do we owe when we say “greater”? Would God not be dependent on lesser things in

order to be great? If God were alone in the universe he would not only be the greatest being at

that time but also the least greatest being. Clearly this the product of a flawed mind.
 And the cosmological argument is no different. A being of perfection, when acts, acts

with reason and purpose. It does not mindlessly abuse it's power. Even if it is merely fulfilling

it's nature (which might be to create, as Taylor's analogy showed), it is still acting with the

purpose of fulfillment.

But a mere act on it's own is the sign of imperfection for if something is done to be

fulfilled it must at one point have been unfulfilled and no perfect being could ever be unfulfilled.

When God creates something it's cause at some point something was missing. To then say

that nothing was ever created is to say that there was a beginning-less existence. If we have

a beginning-less existence and nothing was ever brought into place, then why have God?

It's most logical is stand on neither side of the God debate for there could be a God which

our minds can not grasp and there seems to sometimes be evidence of one. On the other hand, to

deny something just because our minds can't grasp it is like a fanatic denying evolution cause it

simply doesn't make sense to him.