Good God!

In my previous post, What is a Christian?, I wrote that Christians believe in a perfectly good and loving God, who rewards those who seek Him. The basis of this belief is the Bible, in verses such as Hebrews 11:6,

...whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

The idea of a maximally good God has also been fleshed out by Christian theologians and philosophers in the Ontological Argument. Anselm's Ontological arguments entail that it is a logical contradiction for a Perfect Being to exist only in the human mind, and that a Perfect Being exists necessarily. I will not argue for either of those philosophical claims here, but anyone who wants to know what I am referring to can refer to my earlier posts A Perfect Being 1 and A Perfect Being 2. For an even better explanation of Anselm's Ontological Arguments, read Douglas Groothuis's Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

Here I want to rebut some of objections non-Christians raise to the goodness of God.

The most common objection to God's goodness is the problem of evil. Skeptics throughout the ages have looked at the evil in the world and reasoned that if a loving and good God exists, He is either unable to do anything about evil, or He is able to vanquish evil but does not, so He cannot be perfectly good or loving.

This paradox is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

If there is a God, according to this kind of reasoning, He cannot be the omnibenevolent, omnipotent God of the Bible. Some skeptics go so far as to rule the existence of God out entirely based on the existence of evil. But why should we think that evil disproves God's existence?

According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible.

~ Dr. William Lane Craig

I have pointed out that God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing in convsersations with non-Christians. Without exception, none of them has even attempted to prove it is impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. They simply continue to baldly assert that because evil exists, God cannot exist. Maybe there is a rebuttal to Dr. Craig's objection out there somewhere, but if so I have yet to hear it. According to the skeptics, if the God of the Bible really existed, the universe would be a magical domain full of sugar, rainbows, and unicorns, and nothing bad would happen to anyone. Ever. Not even once.

Earlier today, a skeptical friend of mine on Facebook posted this meme:

This is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where one should even begin in criticizing it. There is absolutely no indication in the text of Job that God was concerned with impressing Satan. It is true that God allows Satan to steal Job's health and wealth, but God does not pick Job to be afflicted. He simply points out to Satan that Job is godly and upright, and Satan asks permission to attack Job in order to prove that Job only serves God because God has blessed him. Also, Job does not meekly ask why He has been afflicted--He outright accuses God attacking him in order to kill him!

Terrors are turned upon me;
    my honor is pursued as by the wind,
    and my prosperity has passed away like a cloud.

 And now my soul is poured out within me;
    days of affliction have taken hold of me.
 The night racks my bones,
    and the pain that gnaws me takes no rest.
 With great force my garment is disfigured;
    it binds me about like the collar of my tunic.
 God has cast me into the mire,
    and I have become like dust and ashes.
 I cry to you for help and you do not answer me;
    I stand, and you only look at me.
 You have turned cruel to me;
    with the might of your hand you persecute me.
 You lift me up on the wind; you make me ride on it,
    and you toss me about in the roar of the storm.
 For I know that you will bring me to death
    and to the house appointed for all living.

~ Job 30:15-23, ESV

God does not berate Job for not being omnipotent, but for talking about things he could never possibly understand. God does not only restore Job's wealth, but gives him twice what he had. But that is not good enough for the skeptic because God did not raise Job's first children from the dead--He only gave Job new children! Apparently, even if God deals with evil--as He clearly did with Job--it is insufficient because evil was allowed at all. Nothing short of a problem and pain free paradise will do.

Of course, the author of the meme even attempt to prove that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing Satan to assault Job. It is simply assumed that He cannot have a good reason for allowing evil, on the basis of no facts or arguments whatsoever. I encourage my readers to read the book of Job for themselves if they want to know what it is about. Reading a good commentary would not hurt either. At any rate, we ought not be basing our theological views on internet memes.

These sort of objections are often raised by atheists, but the logical problem of evil is not even a valid option for the atheist. If there is such a thing as evil, there must be such a thing as good, and there must be such a thing as a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. Where did this moral law come from? Let's say for the sake of argument that it is something that evolved in humans as a sort of survival advantage. In that case, morality is not based on anything objective or factually true, but on a continually evolving code of ethics based on survivability, not truth. In the words of the famous atheist Richard Dawkins,

In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

 

The best explanation for morality, if it is an objective, real thing, is that it came from a transcendent lawgiver--such as God. One can either have God and real evil, or one can have no God and things that happen that one simply dislikes and calls evil. In a godless world, what we call evil cannot actually be so in a factual sense. If atheism is true, everything can be reduced to meaningless waves and particles. Nothing good or bad, right or wrong happens; it is all simply molecules in motion.

But if the problem of evil is a real problem at all, it is a problem for everyone: Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and everyone else. But who has the best answer to the problem of evil?

I believe that Christians have the best explanation of evil, and the best answer to it.

God created the world, and called it good. He created humans and called them very good. A perfect God created a good world that was free of evil, but gave humans free will wich allowed for the possibility of evil.

Man chose, and continues to choose evil. That is the explanation of evil.

The wages of sin is death, but God did not want to simply destroy His corrupted creation without a fight.

God Himself took on human form in the Person of Jesus Christ. He was tempted with sin, just like any other man, and He lived a sinless life. He was crucified by sinful men. What they did not realize is that God allowed this evil to happen in order to offer a sinless sacrifice for the sins of all humans. He bore the wages of sin in our place by suffering dying on the cross. On the third day He rose from the dead, victorious over sin and death. He ascended to heavan and will one day return to judge everyone according to what they have done and completely destroy evil. Jesus Christ is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. He is the God who suffered with us, and rescued us from evil.

Everyone who places trust in Him and serves Him as their Lord will receive eternal life.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.  For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”  For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.  For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

~ Romans 10:9-13

 

He is a good God, and He rewards those who seek Him. Everyone who believes and calls on Him will be saved. Call on Him today!

God has taken care of evil, the defeat of which will be consumated at His return. But what if we didn't have the historical record of miracles and other stories pointing to God's goodness in the Bible? The skeptic would still have to deal with the "problem of good--things in the world that suggest His goodness. By focusing on evil, the skeptic forgets about all the good things in the world. For instance, they would still have to deal with the fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity and specificity that suggest the universe had an intelligent Designer. They have to deal with the existence of love, beauty, pleasure, and all the other good things in the world.

Evil certainly exists in the world, but why should we believe disproves the existence of God? Can we prove a good God exists on the basis of good? The truth is we cannot use goodness alone to prove He exists, any more than we can use the problem of evil alone to prove His nonexistence. The problem of evil fails to take things other than evil into account. It is a soundbite sort of objection to God. The world is much more complicated than the problem of evil argument suggests. The skeptic who argues that evil disproves God's existence has jumped the gun, and has failed take into account the whole scope of reality. If the skeptic is genuinely seeking for God, the problem of evil alone cannot stop his/her quest for truth. God cannot be disproved that easily.

The Apostle Paul pointed out that the skeptic is without excuse in the face of the clear evidential support for God.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

Romans 1:18-22, ESV

The problem of evil cannot be ignored, but at the same time we need to take all of reality into account. The skeptic needs to account for good as well as evil, and should not casually discount God's existence simply because evil exists. If the skeptic believes real evil exists in the world, he/she must account for the standard by which good and evil are judged. If such a standard exists, it must come from a transcendent Lawgiver. This should lead the skeptic to seek the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver has plainly shown His eternal power and nature, which is love, in His creation. He has further revealed Himself in the Bible. The skeptic should consider all the evidence, not just the problem of evil.

If more skeptics truly sought out God, they would receive their reward. The other side of the coin is that too many Christians are failures at presenting the evidence for God. While it may be true that God has already plainly revealed Himself apart from His church, He has still given all believers the the priveledge and responsiblity to proclaim the gospel to all the world, make disciples of all nations, and teach them what Jesus taught. If more Christians learned to present the evidence in a compelling manner, more skeptics would be inclined to seek God and receive their reward. Christians must learn to explain and defend the good news that God exists, and He rewards seekers. There is a rational, evidential basis for the Christian faith. Christians need to learn it through and through so they can proclaim it and contend for it.

In conclusion, the fact of the matter is that too many Christians (at least in my neck of the woods), also focus too much on evil to the exclusion of other important facts of reality. In addition to being able to explain and defend the gospel, Christians ought to live as if they actually believed the gospel! While on one hand we cannot ignore evil--abortion, all kinds of sexual immorality (including homosexuality), the decline of the Church in the West, the rise of secular humanism, the rise of Islam, the glorification of sin in the media, etc.--on the other hand we cannot live in despair. Too many sermons and teachings focus on all the things that are wrong with the world. If we believe in the good God of the Bible, and we believe that the Bible is God's Word, let's live as if we actually believe it! Let me preach a little to my fellow Believers.

Jesus said, before He gave the Great Commission,

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

~Matthew 28:18

He told His disciples,

Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.

~Luke 10:19

The Apostle Paul wrote,

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

~1 Corinthians 15:57

and,

God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

~Ephesians 2:4-7

and,

For in [Jesus Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

~Colossians 2:9-15

 

Christians, you walk in victory through Jesus Christ! I am convinced that if Christians began to pray the prayer of faith, walk the walk of faith, and proclaim the good news in faith, the God who exists would reward His seekers by using them to bring new souls into the kingdom. God wants to use His people to minimize the problem of evil. This post has turned into more of a rant than I originally intended, so I will end it here. Christians, we serve a good God, and never forget that through Him we always walk in victory!

A Perfect Being 2

In this follow up to A Perfect Being 1 I want to continue with Anselm's second ontological argument. I believe the second argument does much to bolster Anselm's first argument. However, before I get to the second argument I want to deal with some objections raised in comments on the blog and Facebook to the first ontological argument. To review, Dr. Doug Groothuis broke down Anselm's first argument this way:

1. God is understood or defined as a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived." Even the fool possesses this concept of God.

2. A thing exists either in (a) the understanding only (such as the idea of a painting before it is painted) or (b) in both the understanding and reality, such as existing in the mind of the painter and then existing on the canvas.

3. It is "greater" to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.

4. If God exists merely in the understanding (existing only in the mind of the fool), then God is not the greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in the understanding.

5. But God is by definition the greatest possible being (from 1).

6. Therefore, God exists not merely in the understanding (as the fool claims) but in reality as well. By reduction ad absurdum.

It is important to remember that since the argument is deductive in form and logically valid, the conclusion is inevitably true unless the premises are defeated. Any objection that does not deal with the premises fails. I discussed the argument briefly with Christian apologist Tyler Ramey, and I tend to agree with his assessment: "I think the ONTO argument is unassailable as Groothuis has presented it." Nevertheless, the onus is on me to demonstrate that conviction. I will have to apologize to some of those who commented on Facebook because I seem to no longer have access to the comments (I believe I'm having technical difficulties with my computer). I have been able to resurrect some of the objections of Andrew Magee on the basis of my very fallible memory, in addition to a google search, so some of what they said has certainly been left out.

I will begin with the objections raised in A Perfect Being 1. Someone named bob commented,

Sorry but there is no relationship between "the greatest conceivable thing" and "the greatest actual thing" any more than there is a relationship between "the fastest conceivable car" and "the fastest actual car".

First of all, let me say that if bob was trying to defeat the argument, he was hitting at the right place: Premise 4. Someone else actually beat me to the punch--scottpd responded:

Bob, I disagree that there is no relationship between the greatest conceivable being and the greatest actual being. In so much as the argument clearly addresses actuality as part of the definition of great. The argument hinges on "The greatest possible being" actually being a coherent concept, that is, is the greatest possible being even possible. And,is logical necessity entail actual necessity (aka does the universe have to be ultimately rational).

That response hits the nail on the head. In order to deny this this argument in the way that bob did, one has to deny logic. The strength of the first ontological argument is that it is a logical contradiction for the greatest conceivable being to exist only in the understanding, since an actual greatest conceivable being would necessarily be greater. From there, bob attempted to refute scottpd by comparing the greatest conceivable being to a "greatest conceivable doctor," "greatest conceivable scientist," and "greatest greatest conceivable pianist," but these objections fail because they are restricted to a greatest conceivable specialist, whereas we are arguing for a greatest conceivable being. Next scottpd responded,

I agree Bob, but with the word "being" rather than island, or pianist etc, I think we are working with more definable terms in the sense of character and ability. And so I believe the greatest possible being is a coherent concept whereas the greatest possible island is not.

bob replied,

No, using the word "being" we're working with significantly LESS definable terms.

Case in point: consider "greatest conceivable pianist". I can easily conceive of a pianist who can sight read Rachmaninov's third piano concerto, at full speed, with perfect accuracy, while devising a unique and revolutionary interpretation of the piece in real time and keeping in sync with the orchestra. That pianist does not however, exist, even though the term is not difficult to define at all. Changing from "pianist" to "being" only makes the question more abstract and more difficult to define.

Since scottpd did not respond further at this point, I will. The Perfect Being we are arguing for is in some ways harder to define than a maximally great doctor, scientist, or pianist. What of it? It is not necessary to exhaustively define a Perfect Being for the argument to work, and bob's objection is essentially the same as Guanilo's objection that we can form no concept of a maximally perfect being. Dr. Groothuis deals with that objection handily, so I'll quote him here:

We need not understand everything about this superlative being to have a proper apprehension of it; we simply need to understand the definition given by Anselm. The notion of a Perfect Being is not opaque or swamped by mystery. In fact, we can summarize the previous two paragraphs: A Perfect Being is a being who possesses every property it is better to have than to lack and who possesses this array of compossible excellent properties to the utmost degree (or to their intrinsic maximum value).

Rather than requiring an all-encompassing, rigorous definition of God, the argument still works since even the fool can conceive of such a thing as a Perfect Being. Of course, a complete and total comprehension of God is impossible if He is defined as a maximally great being. A God who can fit neatly inside the limits of human comprehension could not be God, but this is the strength of the argument, not its weakness. This realization brings us right back to the logical contradiction of premise 4. If God exists merely in the understanding (existing only in the mind of the fool), then God is not the greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in the understanding. If God is by definition the greatest possible being (premises 1 and 5), then God exists not merely in the understanding (as the fool claims) but in reality as well (premise 6).

Andrew Magee linked to an article that claimed the argument was fallacious on the grounds that some of the claims of the argument are unproven:

The argument does not attempt to rigorously define "greatness". Without such a definition, even if the argument somehow managed to prove the existence of an object, it says absolutely nothing about the properties of this object. ...

Even if "greatness" can be defined coherently and unambiguously, it does not follow that greatness can be ranked.  ...

Even if "greatness" can be defined coherently and unambiguously, it does not necessarily follow that there is even in theory a maximum attainable greatness.  ...

Even if "greatness" can be defined coherently and unambiguously, and can be ranked, it doesn't follow that any particular imaginable level of greatness actually exists.

The author of the article fails to overcome the first ontological argument for the same reason bob did. It is simple common sense that a Perfect Being would necessarily be greater than a less than perfect being. One doesn't require a rigorous definition of "greater" to conceive this. If "greatness" cannot be ranked, what makes one thing greater than another--for instance, is Anselm's argument or the linked blogger's arguments "greater"? I'll leave that for my readers to decided for themselves, but I don't think any of us will have to rigorously define "greater" to make this distinction. The readers know intuitively that "truth" is "greater" than "falsehood." On that basis, they will decide based on their understanding of the arguments, which argument is "true" and therefore "greater" without any mental gymnastics or long research on the definition of "truth," "falsehood," or "greater."

Then next objection, that there may be no such thing as "maximal attainable greatness" may give my readers some pause, because God is supposed to be infinite. Dr. Groothuis makes a useful observation that God's infinity is qualitative, rather than quantitative. This means that God's perfections can reach an upper limit, and what this practically entails is that instead of only having some power, God is perfectly powerful (or omnipotent); instead of being ignorant of anything, He is perfectly knowledgeable (omniscient); and instead of being a mixture of good and evil, He is perfectly good (omnibenevolent). Usually when one thinks of God being infinite, one imagines quantitative infinity, and this is the source of the linked blogger's misunderstanding. We are not arguing for a God whose qualities go on and on, but a Perfect Being. Once again, for the argument to work concepts such as "greatness" and "perfection" do not need to be exhaustively defined. We can conceive of such things, and this is why the argument works.

Finally, the linked blogger insists that even if "greatness" can be defined and ranked, it doesn't follow that being able to conceive of such notions means they exist. For a rebuttal of this, see my response to the nearly identical objection raised by bob.

The video portion of the blog reiterates Kant's objection, which was dealt with in A Perfect Being 1. The blogger incorrectly accuses Anselm of equivocating concepts with beings; Anselm's argument still works because a Perfect Being would still be greater than a Perfect Concept (and here we go again with premises 4-6!). It was part of Anselm's point that a being is greater than a concept, so the linked blogger is actually making the case for the ontological argument. The blogger is actually engaging in the sort of word games he accuses Anselm of.  His replacement of the Perfect Being with cookies and unicorns was already dealt with in my response to bob, so I won't rehash what I've said already. His most damning objection may be that the Perfect Being argued for by Anselm does not match the God of the Bible. While I disagree, I'll leave my response to that particular claim for a future post. While I clearly come to different conclusions than the linked blogger (and by extension Andrew) if anyone could topple Anselm's first argument, he could have. His arguments were certainly compelling, even if I did not end up agreeing with him. I could not justly accuse anyone of being intellectually inferior for taking his side of the argument.

Let's move on to Anselm's second ontological argument.

Argument 2 is similar in some ways to argument 1, but the difference is that it introduces the concept of "necessary existence." Dr. Groothuis formally puts Anselm's second argument in this way:

1. God is defined as a maximally great or Perfect Being.
2. The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).
3. The concept of a Perfect Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.
4. Therefore (a) a Perfect Being is necessary.
5. Therefore (b) a Perfect Being exists.

As with argument 1, argument 2 is deductive and logically valid. This means that one or more of the premises must be defeated to prevent the conclusion from being true. In fact, the only way to counter argument 2 to prove that the concept of God, a Perfect Being, is self-contradictory or nonsensical. The linked blogger insisted that the concept of God as a necessary being was begging the question, but he did not take Anselm's second argument into account at all.

As [Norman] Malcolm puts it, God's "existence must be logically necessary or logically impossible. The only intelligible way of rejecting Anselm's claim that God's existence is necessary is to maintain that the concept of God, as a being greater than which cannot be conceived, is self contradictory or nonsensical." ~ Dr. Douglas Groothuis

The concept of God as a necessary being is clearly not nonsense, and probably not self-contradictory. In fact, so far we have argued that the contradiction lies in God being conceivable, but not actually existing, since an actual Perfect Being is greater than an purely imaginary Perfect Being. Whoever dissents from Anselm's argument must show that (1) God's attributes are not compossible--as argument 1 states all attributes are perfectly in harmony--or that (2) a single divine attribute is somehow contradictory.

For example, one might object that God cannot be omniscient because He is immaterial--therefore He cannot know what it is like to have a body. This is a bad objection for a couple of reasons. First of all, no theologian claims that God has a first-person experience of everything; this is simply not what is meant by omniscient, or all knowing. Omniscience means that God has knowledge--that is, justified true belief--of everything. Even a finite being like me can know, for example, that Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States, even though I have never experienced the city first hand. If God really did create all things seen and unseen, as the Bible claims, then He would know everything about the universe.

Another objection is raised by the classic dilemma, "Can God make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?" This dilemma is supposed to refute the idea of an omnipotent God. Once again, this argument is the result of theological ignorance. Omnipotence does not mean that God has the ability to do anything. He cannot, for instance, do anything that is logically impossible. This means that He cannot make a stone too heavy for Him to lift, or create a square circle, or a married bachelor. Or to use an example straight out of the Bible, God cannot lie. This does not limit His power in any way, and perfect power is all God needs in order to be considered omnipotent. Ability is not the same thing as power, and God does simply does not have ability to do illogical things.

These arguments can be a little difficult to understand, but as far as I can understand them the arguments are sound. The premises ring true, so the conclusion must be valid, since the arguments are deductive. It's hard to deny the necessity of a Perfect Being unless one can also prove that it is impossible for such a being to exist. Good luck with that!

A Perfect Being 1

As I said in my last blog post, those who continued to follow this blog would hear reasons why I believe in the classical, orthodox Christian worldview. As one of my Facebook friends commented, I may as well have posted the Athanasian Creed. Now that my readers know what I believe, I want you to know why I believe as I do. The purpose of this blog is not only to answer skeptics of classical Christianity, but also to help other Christians who have questions about the faith. Unfortunately, most people do not think deeply about why they believe what they believe. In fact, I did not always think much about my faith in Christ. I was sure I had really experienced God and knew Him, but I would not have been able to tell you much else before I began studying Christian apologetics.

While serving in the United States Marine Corps, I found myself in a foxhole* with an atheist in Baghdad, Iraq (contrary to the popular saying). He was not a particularly bitter or angry atheist. He had never had a bad church experience or strong objections to theism. He merely did not see any good reason to believe in God. I desperately wanted to give him a reason to embrace God, but I was not prepared to make a defense to anyone who asked me for a reason for the hope within me (1 Peter 3:15). I hope and pray that someone reached that Marine with the gospel, because I was taken off guard and an ineffective witness for Christ. It was several years later when I discovered Frank Turek’s television show I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Soon after I read the book of the same title he co-authored with Norman Geisler. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist was my introduction to Christian apologetics, but  I wish I had begun to think more clearly about my beliefs for the sake of the atheist in the foxhole and other atheists I encountered before I discovered apologetics. In memory of that foxhole atheist, I have decided to re-name this blog The Foxhole Evangelist. Now that I have some answers, I want to give them to anyone willing to read this blog.

One of the most fascinating arguments for God’s existence is the ontological argument. My mind was first opened to this line of reasoning in Dr. Douglas Groothuis’s outstanding book, Christian Apologetics: AComprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. In his words,

The ontological argument claims that proper reasoning about the idea of a Perfect Being generates the conclusion that God exists. For this argument, God’s existence is not merely possible or probable or very likely, but is logically guaranteed. In this sense the ontological argument is “the king of the hill” of all the theistic arguments. It is a priori (depending on no debatable empirical conditions); it is deductive in form, thus making its conclusion certain and not merely probable; and its conclusion is metaphysically superlative: there must be a Perfect Being. If successful, the ontological argument is a masterpiece of a priori or rationalist reasoning and, as such, sharply and deeply cuts against the grain of the empiricism that dominates both the popular and the academic mind.

I was intrigued, although part of me thought at first that this argument might be too good to be true. I have friends who claim to only believe in what is observable, testable, and repeatable. On one hand I realized that the empiricist viewpoint is obviously self-contradictory; the idea that only the observable, testable, and repeatable evidence is trustworthy cannot itself be observed, tested, or repeated. On the other hand, an argument for God that relied purely on logic without reference to tangible evidence seemed like a bit of a stretch to me. Dr. Groothuis persuaded me otherwise.

The ontological argument was first conceived by the monk Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 A.D.). Anselm gave two versions of the argument. For the sake of brevity I will quote Dr. Groothuis’s summary of the arguments, but I encourage my readers to read Anselm’s Proslogium for themselves. Inspired by Psalm 14:1, Anselm reasoned:

1.       God is understood or defined as a being “than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Even the fool possesses this concept of God.

2.       A thing exists either in (a) the understanding only (such as the idea of a painting before it is painted) or (b) in both the understanding and reality, such as existing in the mind of the painter and then existing on the canvas.

3.       It is “greater” to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.

4.       If God exists merely in the understanding (existing only in the mind of the fool), then God is not the greatest possible being, since a being that existed in reality would be greater than a being that existed only in the understanding.

5.       But God is by definition the greatest possible being (from 1).

6.       Therefore, God exists not merely in the understanding (as the fool claims) but in reality as well. By reductio ad absurdum.

In other words, even the atheist understands that God is a Perfect Being—the greatest possible being by definition—even though the atheist does not believe such a being actually exists. The atheist understands what God is; if the atheist did not understand God as the greatest possible being, such a being’s existence could not be denied. Things that exist in the real world also exist as concepts in the human mind, but there are also things that only exist in the human mind that are strictly imaginary. The atheist claim is that any Perfect Being is imaginary. Things that exist in the real world are greater than things that only exist in the human mind. If God is only imaginary, obviously He cannot be the greatest possible being, since the real is greater than the imaginary. However, God is by definition the greatest possible being, so He must be real since the real is greater than the strictly imaginary.

Dr. Groothuis points out that,

This argument is deductive and is formally valid. If the five premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily from them.

Of course, that’s a big “if.” If the premises are true, then so must be the conclusion. If any of the premises are faulty, the argument is too good to be true.

Premise 1 is not controversial. God, whether He really exists or is make-believe, is by definition the greatest possible being. According to the Bible, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. He is perfect in every way and to the nth degree. He has every quality that it would be better to have than to lack, and He has no bad qualities whatsoever. He is as good as any being can possibly be, and cannot be (even a little) evil. He is all powerful, and has no weakness at all. He created the heavens and the earth, and so nothing is hidden from His sight and nothing is too difficult for Him to understand. He is perfect love. He is perfectly holy, perfectly just, perfectly righteous, perfectly wise, perfectly merciful, perfectly compassionate, perfectly creative, perfectly humorous, perfectly clever, perfectly witty, perfectly playful, perfectly delightful, perfectly beautiful, perfectly glorious, perfectly awe-inspiring, perfectly victorious, perfectly perfect, and so on. As the Bible says, He cannot lie, and He cannot fail. The Christian insists that such a being not only exists, but is experientially knowable. The atheist denies the existence of a Perfect Being, but even so must know what God is by definition in order to deny His existence.

Premise 2 is also easily agreed upon. Either a Perfect Being is pure hokum, or a He exists in reality. Both theists and atheists can conceive of a Perfect Being. The concept of God is universally understood, and even those who deny the existence of a Greatest Conceivable Being must be able to understand what such a being is in order to reject Him.

One objection is that such a great being is beyond human comprehension. After all, how can finite humans truly understand an infinitely Perfect God? This is something that had actually occurred to me when I had heard of the ontological argument from Dr. William Lane Craig, who prefers the term Greatest Conceivable Being, where Dr. Groothuis used the term Perfect Being. I thought this description limited God to the scope of the human mind, and I realized that even the greatest genius could not fully comprehend his maker. Such a god could not be the transcendent God of the Bible, but only an idol. While I figured that I must have misunderstood Dr. Craig, given his prominence as a philosopher and theologian, this is how the argument sounded to me, and I ignored it for a spell. However, Dr. Groothuis’s explanation helped me to understand where I had gone wrong. When Anselm wrote of God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived,” he did not mean a God that could be neatly fit within the confines of the human mind, only that we could conceive of such a thing as a Perfect Being. An exhaustive knowledge of God was not implied or necessary to Anselm’s argument.

A possible flaw in the argument might be in Premise 3. Why was God’s existence greater than His nonexistence? The strength of the whole argument seems to hinge on whether or not Premise 3 is true, but this also seems to be the most questionable premise.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant insisted that the idea of existing added nothing to the concept of God, and it was therefore conceivable that God did not exist. A helpful example of Kant’s reasoning was given by Dr. Groothuis,

Kant claims that while being almighty is necessary to the idea of God, existing is not necessary to the idea of God. In the same way, having three sides is necessary to the idea of a triangle, but existing is not necessary for the idea of a triangle. That is, it might be the case that no triangles exist even if the very idea of a triangle requires that it have exactly three sides. One can conceive of God as non-existent, just as one can think of a triangle as nonexistent.

Premise 3 states, “It is ‘greater’ to exist in reality than to exist merely in the understanding.” However, if Kant is right then this is an odd statement to make. We do not typically think of things being greater simply because they exist. We might say a well-trained dog is greater than an undisciplined dog, but we would not think a dog “great” only because it existed. We can apply the same kind of logic to almost anything. To merely say something exists doesn’t seem to add to its greatness. Dr. Groothuis agrees that in most cases, this is true.

It is not a settled principle that for any possible being it is better for that being to exist than not to exist. Indeed, it is better for an unstoppable flesh-eating virus not to exist than to exist, and Anselm is not suggesting otherwise.

The difference here is that we have a Perfect Being in mind. A Perfect Being that actually exists is obviously greater than an imaginary Perfect Being. If the greatest conceivable being that Anselm wrote of exists, then this universe was created for a reason, the best of reasons in fact, because its Creator is maximally good. Our existence has real meaning and purpose. We can take comfort in the fact that fine-tuning is not merely apparent, but evidence that the universe was designed with the greatest wisdom and precision. We can rest in the knowledge that God is not malevolent or arbitrarily making up the rules as He goes along; rather, the standard of all goodness and morality is rooted in His maximally great nature. He is sovereign and just, and worthy of our trust and worship.

Premise 4 states that if God is imaginary, only existing as a figment of the imagination, then He cannot be the Greatest Conceivable Being. If a Perfect Being does not exist then there is no good or evil, right or wrong, truth or falsehood. Mother Theresa was no better than Adolf Hitler, and Adolf Hitler was no worse than Mother Theresa. The world has no purpose or meaning, and we are simply the arbitrary result of the blind physical forces of the universe. However, we are rescued from despair by Premise 5, which reminds us that by definition God is the Greatest Possible Being. The inescapable conclusion is a Perfect Being really does exist. Hallelujah!

There is a bit more to this argument. In fact, I have only given the first version of Anselm’s ontological argument. However, the second argument will have to wait until next time.

*To be perfectly accurate, no Marine nowadays uses the term “foxhole.” It is now known as a “fighting hole,” and any Marine who unwittingly uses the term “foxhole” will be swiftly corrected by their superiors. However, since the proverbial saying is that, “There’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole,” I have retained the older, more popular nomenclature.