Monthly Archives: January 2009

The Trinity at One


Having recently completed a mini Comparative-Religions offered at my school, I’ve realized that many concepts I had thought to be shared and understood in most, if not all, religions, or at least in the Abrahamic faiths, were in fact unique to Christianity.  In light of this discovery, my next few posts will be dealing with sin, the afterlife, and the nature of God.  And what of God’s nature is more important to Christianity than the Trinity?

To explain the Trinity, I will be borrowing from the content of Vox Dei‘s argument against the Problem of Evil by eliminating Omniderigence (Which is to say, the purported trait of God foreordering all things) This is a brilliant article, which can be found in the fifteenth chapter of his book, “The Irrational Atheist” in which he points out the factual errors found in the “New Atheist’s” books.  The whole thing can be found online for free from his website, but be warned- he doesn’t really get to the point of his book until the fourth chapter.  The first three chapters are really just him patronizing Dawkins (“wrong”), Hitchens (“drunk, and he’s wrong”), and Harris (“so superlatively wrong that it will require the development of esoteric mathematics operating simultaneously in multiple dimensions to fully comprehend the orders of magnitude of his wrongness”).  Once he gets around to it though, the depth of his research is amazing and an invaluable resource to anyone trying to argue with the “new” atheists.  But back to my point…

Imagine that you’re a game designer, creating a virtual world populated with AIs.  You are in complete control of the world- you can read every line of code when ever you want to, see the very “thoughts” of your creations at will.  You create your own AI character in order to change the movements of your programming.  Your avatar is completely digital- it would be ridiculous to assert it’s flesh and blood.  And yet, it is in every sense you, since your will is in control of it’s AI.  You and the avatar act in complete sync.  You are both undeniably distinct, and yourself much “greater” then the avatar, but at the same time you are exactly the same.  You can also act apart from your avatar, whether through subtly tweaking lines of code in the NPCs, influencing the conditions in your virtual world, or by just causing the NPCs to act in accordance with your designs.  Your influence can’t be directly observed or noticed by the NPCs, but it is there.  That is, in a sense, how God works.  He is all at once Heavenly Father, creator of the world, Jesus Christ, God made Man, and the Holy Spirit, acting through believers.  It’s not a perfect metaphor- it can’t account for the Ascension, the Love between the Father and the Son, or the fact that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each distinct in will.  But at the very least, it’s not the usual heresies (I’m looking at you, water-ice-steam-one-substance and the “I’m a father and a son and a thought but I’m one person” metaphors).



Filed under Doctrine, Trinity

Ontological Argument


THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT is one of the most controversial types of theistic argument.  Originally developed by the Augustinian St Anselm of Canterbury, and more recently revived by Professor Alvin Plantinga (left), the Ontological Argument is  intended to show once and for all,that the Christian God exists, with every facet of His definition included.  This includes omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and the general term “perfection”.   To sum up the introduction, the Ontological Arguments are the apologetic ace in the hole.  An Ontological Argument shows that the existence of the concept of God, or the possibility of God, presupposes the very existence of God.


1. the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.
2. (loosely) metaphysics.

  There are several versions of the Ontological Argument out there, three of which I shall mention here, and only two of the three are valid.  Let’s start off with the invalid one, which is St Anselm’s version



  1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
  2. “God” means “that than which a greater cannot be thought.”
  3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
  4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
  5. But this is impossible, for God is “that than which a greater cannot be thought.”
  6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

Now, this argument is at first often laughed off as a bizarre sort of riddle or joke, but then later seems to be rock-solid.  David Hume once remarked that the argument was obviously false, but that he could not for the life of him find where the fallacy lies. 

Immanuel Kant refuted the argument in five words, I think.  “Existence is not a perfection”.  The fault lies hidden in premise 4.  The key thing to note is that existence, unlike omnipotence, omniscience and perfection, is not a quality that a being posesses.  Existence itself is a thing which posesses qualities.  In short, philosophical terms, existence precedes essence (or nature, commonly: definition).  A thing must first exist before it has qualities.  

The second version of the Ontological Argument I will go over here (albeit in an unduly brief manner) is Descartes’ Version, which turns up in Descartes’ third Meditations, and which exercises the Law of Efficient Causality.  Fortunately, I believe this argument is valid and am prepared to defend it.  It must be noted though, that his version is not purely ontological, but argues from causality as it pertains to the idea of God.


  1. We have ideas of many things.
  2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
  3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being.
  4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause.
  5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God.
  6. But only God himself has those qualities.
  7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
  8. Therefore God exists.

Now, this argument is extremely straightforward, and I have an answer to every conceivable sort of objection already planned out.  Seeing as how almost every premise can come under fire depending on who you’re talking to, I shall post none of my answers to the objections here.  I shall reply to them as they come up as comments, and post them on the appropriate Objections Page for this category of argumentation.  Rest assured that I have every reason to believe in the validity of this argument.  Every premise has been delicately scrutinized for error, though only insofar as I am able.  After all, I’m no philosopher.

The third and final version of the Ontological Argument I will go over here is the Modal Ontological Argument, which utilizes Modal Logic, or the logical understanding of possibility and necessity as they relate to existence.  This argument was made by Alvin Plantinga, as an attempt to form a successful argument that captured the purpose and style of Anselm’s argument, whilst retaining its validity.  Thus far, Plantinga appears successful in this endeavor.

A few preliminary clarificaltions must be made if the argument is to be understood by mere laymen.  When Plantinga says “possible world”, he is not referring to other possible planets like Earth, or to possible ways things could be in the future, but rather a possible world as a possible description of reality.  A coherent depiction of how things could be, is a decent definition of a possible world.  “Now in his version of the argument, Plantinga conceives of God as that which is “maximally excellent” in every possible world. Plantinga defines maximal excellence as including such qualities as omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. A being which has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga defines as “maximal greatness”.   


1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists 

Premises (2)-(5) of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then He must exist.   And it is important to note that this is the key point of the argument.  The Modal Ontological argument shows that if God’s existence is possible, then God’s existence is real.  The principal issue to be settled with respect to Plantinga’s ontological argument is what warrant exists for thinking the key premiss “It’s possible that a maximally great being exists” to be true.

The idea of a maximally great being is intuitively a coherent idea, and so it seems plausible that such a being could exist. In order for the ontological argument to fail, the concept of a maximally great being must be incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor. But the concept of a maximally great being doesn’t seem even remotely incoherent. This provides some prima facie warrant for thinking that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.” (William Lane Craig,

In conclusion, I believe the two ontological arguments shown here to be valid arguments for the existence of God, but would like to add a few things.  Though Anselm’s Argument is indeed false, it might be redeemed by some unforeseen twist of logic in the future.  Until then, however, it should be considered false.  False or not though, it is highly defensible as far as lies go.  The fallacy is so craftily hidden that only someone who has memorized the refutation off of the internet or something will be able to stop you. 

You can easily use it to convince people, but only at first.  After a while, they will discover the name of the argument, as its premises will likely stick in their heads, search it on Google, and then find some summed up refutation of it off of or something.  This will be both the end of their faith and the end of your credibility if they do.  With that in mind, I would urge everyone to ignore the powerful attraction that I and probably you have for Anselm’s argument.  It is false,  and though I have hinted at its possible resurrection, I would caution you that this hope is dangerous.  It may lead you to using it against someone who knows the refutation.  DON’T DO THAT! 

Besides, most people will only look at you with stunned expressions, and then burst into laughter.  Most people initially see the argument as a joke.  If you push it though, they’ll stop real quick.  Use it primarily as a getaway plan, a sort of escape.  It’s definitely a debate-stopper.  It will frustrate atheists and convince agnostics of some nonsense about both sides being reasonable or what have you.  Even though they act seriously towards it in the open, on the inside, any agnostic will ponder it not as a proof, but as a joke.  Refutations will be rare, though.  This joke is 1,000 years old.  The only poeple able to refute you will be the ones who’ve “heard this joke before”.



Filed under Theistic Arguments, Theoretical Category