Skip to main content

An Ontological Disproof of Classical Anselmian Theism

Here's a rough draft of yet another argument I'm toying with that's in the same vein as several others I've discussed here recently:

Suppose for reductio that it's metaphysically possible that a necessary being exists, and that this being is the god of classical Anselmian theism. Let's follow Plantinga's claim here that such a being has the property of maximal greatness, where: (i) a being's maximal greatness entails maximal excellence in every possible world, (ii) maximal excellence includes the classical attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection, and (iii) omnipotence includes the capacity to create or sustain concrete objects distinct from itself without a material cause. Therefore, if it's metaphysically possible that a maximally great being exists, then such a being exists in all metaphysically possible worlds. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in all metaphysically possible worlds. By the above conception of maximal excellence, for any world W that contains a universe of concrete objects distinct from God, if God exists in W, then God originates or sustains the universe in W without a material cause. But the origination or sustenance of any such universe without a material cause is metaphysically impossible. Now a universe of concrete objects exists at the actual world. Therefore, the god of classical Anselmian theism did not originate or sustain the universe that exists at the actual world. Therefore, the god of classical Anselmian theism doesn't exist at the actual world. But this contradicts the above line that he exists in all possible worlds. Therefore, the existence of the god of classical Anselmian theism is metaphysically impossible.

The upshot is that Plantinga appears to have been wrong: the crucial premise of the modal ontological argument -- viz., that a maximally great being (as Plantinga understands that notion) is metaphysically possible -- is contrary to reason. For we've just seen that the notion of a being that is the creator of all other concrete objects distinct from himself is on a par with the concept of a being that is the creator of round squares, as both entail a metaphysical impossibility.


Brett Lunn said…
This strain of argument seems to rest on your premise from another post: "All concrete objects that begin to exist have a material cause of their existence."

In support, you cite experience and intuition. As to experience, I think we know that can only get us so far. In other words, it's not a closed case for the premise, but it does provide a bit of evidence (note: what Craig believes or argues seems irrelevant, so we can set him aside). So maybe if one is on the fence, then it should carry some weight, but if there is a decent argument for the theism targeted here, then it would be undercut.

But does the premise even have outright experience? People will differ. If Cartesian dualism is true, then it's hard to see that it has universal support. I'm not here to defend Cartesian dualism, but simply making an observation.

Second, you give intuition. Suppose God exists, can He create an angel? It seems like most people (all?) want to accept that, but then intuitions would clash on the matter. So it would be undercut.

Moreover, it could be undercut by, again, a decent argument for the particular brand of theism or for some conclusion that says all material reality began to exist (which, again, I'm not here to defend).

Brett Lunn
exapologist said…
Hi Brett,

Thanks for your comments.

The truth of substance dualism wouldn't be a counterexample to the principle of material causality as I've defined it, as it's no essential part of substance dualism that souls are created ex nihilo, although of course they are commonly held to be created in this way in some religious traditions.[1]

But in any case, it bears stressing that the principle of material causality in play is neutral about the existence of immaterial concrete objects, such as souls or spirits. Rather, it merely asserts that objects (whether material or immaterial) with originating or sustaining causes (whether material or immaterial) are made from other objects or stuff (whether material or immaterial). By ‘material cause’, then, I mean (roughly) ‘the things or stuff out of which a new thing is made (whether material or immaterial)’. As such, the principle in play would, if true, require the creation of substantial souls to be created from prior (immaterial) stuff, in which case substance dualism, if true, would itself entail the falsity of classical theism.

However, suppose one thinks that while the thought experiments from the earlier post adequately support the principle of material causality with respect to physical concrete objects, they can't adequately support the extension of the principle to immaterial concrete objects. Can similar thought experiments likewise support the intuition that substantial immaterial souls likewise require a material cause? I think it's clear that they can. So, for example, suppose we were told that a certain finite immaterial soul had a very special characteristic: it popped into existence out of nothing without an efficient cause. Most, I imagine would find such a claim implausible. But suppose instead that we were told the soul was special for another reason: a finite disembodied spirit created a soul -- an immaterial substance that can exist in its own right every bit as much as a log cabin, with a structure and properties and capacities -- without any prior materials. Most, I imagine, would find the second claim at least as implausible as the first; a similar intuition obtains when we consider the creation of any other sort of immaterial substance, such as an angel or other sort of finite spirit. It therefore seems to me that the principle of material causality extends to immaterial substances as well.

Perhaps one will reply that while a finite spirit can't create souls ex nihilo, an omnipotent spirit (viz., God) could do so, as an omnipotent spirit has the capacity to do anything that's metaphysically possible. However, that would beg the very question at issue, viz., that creation ex nihilo of concrete objects is metaphysically possible.

I think you're right about your point re: the limitations of appeal to experience in support of a non-defeasible version of the principle of material causality. Because of this problem, I have subsequently dropped appeal to experience for support of a non-defeasible version of the principle (viz., the one in the post linked to above). I think the intuition triggered by the original thought experiments are sufficient by themselves to confer prima facie support for this stronger version of the principle. However, I have subsequently proposed a defeasible version of the principle, and I think experience provides adequate abductive grounds for the latter version of the principle.


[1] Even here we must be careful, though. For traducianism is a prominent view among dualists within the Christian tradition, according to which souls are created from the preexisting materials of the soul(s) of their parents.

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 

The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at

Andrew Moon's New Paper on Recent Work in Reformed Epistemology... the latest issue of Philosophy Compass. Here's the abstract:
Reformed epistemology, roughly, is the thesis that religious belief can be rational without argument. After providing some background, I present Plantinga's defense of reformed epistemology and its influence on religious debunking arguments. I then discuss three objections to Plantinga's arguments that arise from the following topics: skeptical theism, cognitive science of religion, and basicality. I then show how reformed epistemology has recently been undergirded by a number of epistemological theories, including phenomenal conservatism and virtue epistemology. I end by noting that a good objection to reformed epistemology must criticize either a substantive epistemological theory or the application of that theory to religious belief; I also show that the famous Great Pumpkin Objection is an example of the former. And if a copy should make its way to my inbox...

UPDATE: Thanks!