God is Never Less
On Using the Ontological Argument
There is a famous and infamous argument for the existence of God called "the ontological argument."
The ontological argument is attributed to St. Anselm, and a version of it goes like this:
God is the greatest being that can be imagined.
To exist is greater than to not exist.
Therefore, God exists.
That's a neat and tidy three lines proving the existence of God. And if you sense something squirrelly in the argument going on, you're not alone. Even Thomas Aquinas didn't find Anselm's argument convincing. And yet, the argument has been defended by philosophers over the years. And I once met a person who found the argument so compelling they became a Christian.
For my part, I've never found the ontological argument compelling. But recently I've been using something like the ontological argument when talking to wavering believers.
Many of us grew up with a vision of God that was narrow and/or less than loving. And as we aged we come to reject that image of God. The God we grew up with seemed less--less kind, less loving, less merciful, less generous, less gracious. Less true, less beautiful and less good.
And so, we stopped believing in God, or serious doubts came to block our way.
And it's here where I've found the ontological argument to be useful. Specifically, God can never be less. When the golden horizon of the true, beautiful, good, and loving pushes beyond our current vision of God we must push the word "God" to that horizon and beyond. Your vision of the beautiful or loving cannot exceed the location where you camp the word "God." For if the word "God" stands under the true, beautiful, good, and loving, if God is perceived in anyway less than the good, true, beautiful or loving, then the word "God" isn't naming God. Because God simply is the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. God is Love Itself. Thus, God can't be less than good, true, beautiful, good, or loving.
And so, I counsel doubting believers: If you ever feel that God is "less than" some good, true, beautiful or loving thing then you're no longer talking about God. Pick up the word "God" and walk it toward the horizon where you imagine the most good, true, beautiful, and loving thing in the world. Place the word "God" at the limit of that horizon. And when your imagination expands to see something even more true, good, beautiful, and loving keep walking the word "God" toward that horizon. For God simply is that horizon. Or, more properly, God, as the Source of the True, Beautiful, Good and Loving, is the Horizon that our horizons keep chasing but will never reach. God can only name that which exceeds all that we imagine as true, beautiful, good and loving. God is never less.
I like this a lot, but I have some friends that are struggling with the OT and the God they see there, which, generally (I grant there are many many exceptions) doesn’t appear “True, Beautiful, Good and Loving”. My current thought about that is that God is the same in both Covenants, but Man changed. It’s like God fathered “Mankind”, and specifically His people, as if they were small children. There were very specific rules that were important for survival both physically and culturally and if the “child” broke them, there were consequences that were sometimes severe, but with the aim of developing this young child. And if anyone threatened the existence of that “child”, that threat was eliminated. But then, that “child” grew up, and when that happened, the father didn’t relate to the “child” the same way, as any father does. But the Father is the same.
Idk if that works. It makes sense. It helps me justify what I see in the OT vs what I see in Jesus. Idk why this happened when it did, 1st Century Rome and all. But it helps me be intellectually honest with the text. There are probably many other holes in my theory.
Thoughts?