Reasonable Faith

Guest (Male): Dr. Craig, I would like to start by stating how incredibly thankful I am for you and your work in natural theology. It was through watching your several debates with atheists during a particularly difficult time in my life that I came to believe wholeheartedly that God does in fact exist. It all started when a friend of mine, who had been studying your materials, began to practice the arguments in conversations with me.

Of course, I remained resistant in my sinful nature. The best I would ever admit to was that maybe it might be possible that a God could exist, but that it was nevertheless highly improbable. That is, until he ran the ontological argument. Once the concept of the greatest conceivable being had been established, and he posed the question, "is it greater to be necessary or contingent?", I was suddenly overtaken by the Holy Spirit as the undeniable force of the logic hit me.

I had no answer. I didn't fully give in to the truth at that moment. I tried to explain away my experience of the Spirit as a purely psychological phenomenon, but it was at that point that I began watching your videos and earnestly searching and considering. It was the turning point that saved my life. Because of this, I credit the ontological argument with my salvation.

I know that this puts me in the minority as far as people who have been saved through the various arguments, and that others are typically considered to be more powerful or stand-alone. Because of this, I have a personal interest in considering possible ways to strengthen the argument or to augment its presentation. In contemplating this, I believe I have identified two changes to terminology that could potentially be helpful.

One, instead of "greatest conceivable being", we could say "greatest possible being". I feel that this accomplishes two things. First, it establishes the concept of God as more associated with reality than with the human mind. In saying "greatest conceivable being", it implies that God is somehow limited by what is conceivable to the human mind, and this does not do God proper justice.

It is evidently clear, both through scripture and direct experience, that God is far beyond what we can properly conceive. I understand that it could be argued that Plantinga's maximally great being could accomplish the same task. However, that language seems very clunky and unnatural, whereas "greatest possible being" seems more intuitive. Second, it establishes the possibility of God implicitly. If he is the greatest possible being, then clearly he is possible.

You would still use the description of having all great-making properties to the highest degree and therefore establish his necessity. In this way, it would still be up to the objector to show that he is not possible in order to defeat the argument. Two, instead of "possible worlds", we can say "possible realities". It became evident to me when listening to your Defenders podcast in the excursus on natural theology that the concept of possible worlds seems to cause a great deal of people some level of confusion.

You had to say several times that this terminology did not mean that these were some other worlds that actually existed out there somewhere. Even so, some people still seem to stumble over the concept. Perhaps "possible realities" could dispel some of this confusion. Also, it seems that by saying "possible realities", we not only encompass the whole of the universe, but since it would encapsulate all of reality, it would also cover any multiverse conceptions. Your brother in Christ, Joshua, United States.

Dr. William Lane Craig: What an incredible testimonial to the confluence of God's Spirit and the arguments of natural theology in bringing someone to saving faith. The ontological argument, even if sound, has been regarded by so many people as hopeless in evangelism. But testimonials like yours, Joshua, prove the opposite. Indeed, among our various Zangmeister videos on the arguments of natural theology, the most popular is the video on the ontological argument. It must be resonating with someone.

I find your two suggestions, especially the first, to be helpful and important. Saint Anselm's description of God as "that than which a greater cannot be conceived" is, to borrow your phrase, so clunky and unnatural that for many years, I substituted the expression "the greatest conceivable being". It was with some embarrassment that I came to realize that this was a mischaracterization of Anselm on my part.

Anselm is explicit that God is even greater than we can conceive, and that therefore to call him the greatest conceivable being is to diminish the concept of God. Anselm's point is that nothing can be conceived that is greater than God. So God may be referred to as the greatest possible being, or a maximally great being, or a perfect being.

Your first suggestion is, therefore, an important corrective that you'll find I follow in my discussion of the ontological argument in my forthcoming systematic philosophical theology, Volume 2B, Excursus on Natural Theology. You're right that the phrase "maximally great being" is more opaque than "greatest possible being", but it does have the advantage of being widely used in the literature on the subject, and so I use it.

As for your second suggestion, the expression "possible worlds" is similarly so deeply entrenched in philosophical discussions, not only of the ontological argument, but many matters of modality and metaphysics, that it is irreplaceable. But if you find "possible realities" to be more communicative in a popular-level presentation, then go ahead. I suspect that you will still find yourself obliged to explain to people that you are not postulating multiple realities.