Introduction: The Nature of Being and the Existence of God

The ontological argument for the existence of God, first clearly formulated by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century, seeks to establish God’s existence through reasoning alone—without appeal to empirical observation. At its core, it is an argument from the concept of “being” to the necessity of the existence of a maximally great being—i.e., God. While the ontological argument has fascinated theologians and philosophers alike, it remains one of the most controversial approaches to natural theology.

This article examines the ontological argument from a conservative evangelical perspective rooted in a high view of Scripture, applying a rigorous historical-grammatical interpretive framework. We will evaluate the philosophical structure of the argument, its implications for theology, and its limitations in the light of the inerrant, infallible Word of God. We will also contrast it with the revealed evidence of Scripture and argue why divine revelation must be primary in apologetics, even while sound philosophical reasoning has value as a tool in the defense of the faith.

The Ontological Argument Defined

Anselm’s formulation of the ontological argument appears in his work Proslogion, written around 1077 C.E. His core idea is summarized as follows: God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” and it is greater to exist in reality than merely in the understanding. Therefore, if such a being exists in the mind, He must also exist in reality—else He would not be the greatest conceivable being.

René Descartes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and later proponents such as Alvin Plantinga modified or reformulated the argument. Plantinga, for example, provided a modal logic version of the argument that introduces the concept of possible worlds. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then He exists in every possible world, including the actual world.

Although these modern iterations involve technical refinements, the core idea remains: the very concept of God as a necessary, perfect being entails His existence.

The Biblical Doctrine of God’s Being

From a scriptural perspective, God is not a concept inferred by abstract reasoning; He is the eternally existing, self-revealing Creator. Exodus 3:14 records God’s statement to Moses: “I AM WHO I AM.” This declaration of God’s self-existence (Hebrew: Ehyeh asher Ehyeh) reveals the foundational concept of being—it is rooted in Jehovah’s eternal nature. He is not contingent; He depends on nothing outside of Himself for His existence. He is aseity (from the Latin a se, meaning “from Himself”).

Isaiah 44:6 affirms, “This is what Jehovah says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, Jehovah of armies: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.” Jehovah does not merely exist; He is Being itself. John 1:1, which proclaims, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” testifies to this same ontological reality.

Thus, while the ontological argument attempts to reason up to the existence of God, Scripture begins with the presupposition of God’s existence and His self-revelation to humanity. Genesis 1:1 declares it simply: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” There is no argument offered. The reality of God’s being is the foundation, not the conclusion.

Evaluating the Ontological Argument Philosophically

While the ontological argument does not derive from biblical exegesis, it remains a significant feature in classical apologetics. However, it must be evaluated with intellectual caution.

Philosophically, the ontological argument commits to the idea that existence is a predicate or a quality that makes a being greater. Immanuel Kant famously challenged this notion, arguing that existence is not a real predicate—that is, it adds nothing to the concept of a thing. A hundred real dollars and a hundred imaginary dollars are conceptually identical until they are possessed; existence is not a property but the instantiation of a property.

Yet, in response, modern defenders like Plantinga argue that the modal ontological argument is not claiming existence is a predicate in the traditional sense but rather a necessity that follows from the definition of maximal greatness—a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect in every possible world. If such a being is even possible, then by modal necessity, He exists.

From a conservative Christian perspective, while this kind of philosophical reasoning might be useful for stimulating thought or engaging theistic discussions with unbelievers, it must never replace revelation as the basis for belief. Romans 1:19-20 shows that the knowledge of God is available to all through what He has made—not merely through abstract deduction: “What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”

Ontology and the God of the Bible

The ontological argument might conclude in a generic theistic being, but it cannot derive the biblical God. It tells us nothing of Jehovah’s holiness, justice, mercy, or His redemptive plan through Jesus Christ. Philosophical arguments, while useful in their proper context, are general in nature. They can help establish the possibility or necessity of a supreme being but never the identity of that being.

Scripture, however, not only declares that God exists but also tells us who He is, what He has done, and what He demands of His creatures. Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.” Faith, biblically defined, is not belief without evidence, but trust based on God’s self-revelation and historical acts.

The ontological argument, being grounded in human reason, cannot provide the experiential and redemptive knowledge of God. It cannot convict the heart, transform the soul, or reveal the righteousness that comes by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 1:17). The God who is, is not merely the greatest conceivable being—He is the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer.

Misapplications and Dangers of the Ontological Argument

There are significant dangers in relying too heavily on the ontological argument or elevating it as a primary proof of God’s existence. First, it promotes the illusion that man can arrive at truth about God apart from divine revelation. Second, it often encourages an impersonal, abstract conception of God, one that is more compatible with classical theism than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Furthermore, it opens the door to false counter-arguments. If one accepts that defining something into existence is valid, then logically incoherent “parodies” (like Gaunilo’s “perfect island” objection) become seemingly viable, even if they are invalid in form. These reduce serious theological inquiry into philosophical gamesmanship.

Moreover, the ontological argument presupposes that the human mind can rightly conceive of “the greatest possible being” without error. But Scripture teaches that man’s mind is darkened due to sin (Romans 1:21; Ephesians 4:18). Any concept of God that is derived apart from His revelation is inherently flawed.

A Biblical Alternative: The God Who Reveals Himself

In contrast to human reasoning that attempts to discover God, the biblical worldview begins with divine initiative. God makes Himself known. Hebrews 1:1-2 states, “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son.” This progressive revelation culminates in the person of Jesus Christ, the perfect image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).

The Christian worldview is not built upon abstract speculation, but on the objective reality of God’s acts in history—creation, covenant, judgment, redemption, and ultimately, consummation in Christ’s return. It is grounded in the inerrant and infallible Scriptures which are “God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

The ontological argument cannot save a man. It cannot bring him to repentance or faith. At best, it can awaken a sense of the divine, but only the Word of God, empowered by the Holy Spirit working through Scripture—not indwelling but guiding—can bring about regeneration (Romans 10:17; John 17:17).

Conclusion: Place of the Ontological Argument in Evangelical Apologetics

From a conservative evangelical perspective, the ontological argument is not without value, but it must be subordinated to the authority of Scripture. It may serve a supplementary role in apologetics, helping to demonstrate the coherence and rationality of belief in God, especially in philosophical discourse. However, it cannot be a foundation for faith.

We are not called to persuade people into the Kingdom by reason alone. Rather, we proclaim the truth revealed in Scripture, knowing that “the gospel… is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). All philosophical arguments, including the ontological argument, must be measured against this gospel and the revealed character of God in the Bible.

You May Also Enjoy

The Cosmological Argument: A Rational Defense for the Existence of God

About the Author