So, what is the point? That is the ultimate question, right? The ultimate worldview question: what is the point? Ultimately, there must be a point to it all rather than not. We humans possess the attributes that we do for some reason. Consider the human qualities that have nothing to do with “survival of the fittest,” like the human soul and all it entails. For example, the exclusively human capacity to think abstract thoughts, especially abstract thoughts about a God that no one can directly see or hear. Even so, there is a strong argument to be made that a great Being of which one greater cannot be conceived exists necessarily. Let me explain.

The ontological argument for the existence of God was first put forward by Anselm of Canterbury in 1078. Anselm defined God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” He further argued that even nonbelievers like our Bible skeptic, Michael, could conceive of such a maximally great being. And because such a being must exist in the mind, it must also exist in reality because if this Being only exists in the mind and not in fact, then a greater Being (one who does exist in the mind and in reality) must be possible. Because of this, this greatest possible Being must exist necessarily in reality. Such are called ontological arguments.

Through the centuries, ontological arguments have been modified and improved upon by notable figures such as Descartes and Leibniz. Today, Christian Alvin Plantinga has offered yet another modification to the argument. Plantinga’s formulation can be generally stated this way:

• God is, by definition, a Being greater than which nothing can be conceived.

• It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.

• Therefore, God must exist in reality. If he did not, he would not be the greatest being possible.

There is no argument concerning number one; even the Bible skeptic Michael must agree with that. Number two, however, is questioned, and the concern is this: is it truly greater to exist than to not exist? The 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant was not so sure. However, one of the weaknesses of the ontological argument is that it depends on the assumption that “something exists.” For this reason, the ontological argument is not a helpful argument from which to begin arguing for the existence of God.

First, as a starting point, the ontological argument ends up being what philosophers call “question-begging” or “a circular argument.” Paul Edwards defines a circular argument as “when one proposition is defended by reference to another, and the second is defended by reference to the first.” This is what philosophers called arguing in a circle.

Second, and closely related, the ontological argument presupposes what Michael, the Bible skeptic, categorically denies – the existence of the God of theism as revealed in Scripture. Third, the ontological argument is flawed as a starting argument because it requires “something to exist” to be true. Once it is established that something exists, then it is logical that a necessary God exists.

However, the weakness of the ontological argument points to the beauty of what we have been attempting in this column: to present a cumulative case argument for the existence of God that builds layer upon layer of evidence. As such, and at this point in the cumulative case argument, we have already established that something indeed exists based on evidence from the cosmos, irreducible complexity, and intelligent design. And if something exists, it is highly reasonable to conclude that such a maximally great Being also exists. For this reason, the statement that “something exists; therefore God exists” is not an unreasonable proposition but naturally flows from the logic and from concrete evidence observed and deduced from “the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:19ff) and have been presented to this point.

Undoubtedly, it is a deep, complex question: Is God dead? Complex questions sometimes require more than simple answers. Sometimes, complex questions require a cumulative-type approach, which is not so much unlike a lawyer who presents layer upon layer of cumulative evidence to a jury. At this point in our “case,” much has been given, so much so that a summary of where we are is in order. Join us next week as we offer a brief overview of the evidence we have considered to this point and some very important preliminary conclusions about what that evidence tells us. Until then, remember, whether we realize it or not, all of us live as if we have answered the question: Is God dead? What is your answer?

Gloria in excelsis Deo!