Apologetics to the Glory of God

Response To Mitch LeBlanc’s Odd Ontological Argument

Mitch LeBlanc has written an alleged defense of his attempt to redefine God and hence defeat the presuppositionalist program. You may find his article here:

Mitch writes, “I would first like to explain that while the idea of a lying God is logically absurd on a Thomist conception of God, it is not logically absurd on a Presuppositionalist conception.” What follows this claim is rather odd. Mitch thinks that a Thomist appealing to Anselm’s “definition” of God can show that the idea of a lying God is logically absurd. The Thomist may do so as follows:

“1. God is the being that which none greater can be conceived
2. It is greater to be honest than to be a liar
3. Therefore, God is honest.”

However if Mitch grants this, then he should have no trouble granting this:

“1. God is the being described in Christian Scripture
2. The description excludes the possibility of lying
3. Therefore, God is honest.”

There is also no problem if Mitch thinks that the definition provided via Anselm is compatible with the God of Christian Scripture.

All of this is in accordance with what Mitch has himself presented. One may expect that I should present something a bit different.

As many different concepts of gods as there are why should Anselm’s be accepted? Rejecting the concept appears to entail no contradiction. It looks arbitrary unless we take into account where it is being used at which point it looks contrived. Even accepting the intentionality proposed in the first premise, there is no reason given to accept the second premise. Why should we accept that it is greater to be honest than to be a liar? Perhaps it is greater to be a liar than to be honest. Mitch will need to argue for this premise if it is to stick, but, and this is the most significant part of the response to what Mitch offers regarding Thomism; all of this is quite irrelevant to the subject before us.

The alleged Thomist definition of God as synonymous with Anselm’s definition is false, as Thomists are in the Christian tradition and hence ultimately define God in terms of Scripture. This is one of the biggest problems with Thomism, the god it proves is not the God of Christian Scripture though the Thomist will try his or her hardest to have a person believe that it is. Merely labeling the supposed result of a syllogism “God” does not close the gap between what has actually been proven, if anything, and what the God of Scripture is described to be. God is already assumed in the premises of traditional arguments for the existence of God, and in actuality the whole enterprise presupposes the existence of God anyway.






One response to “Response To Mitch LeBlanc’s Odd Ontological Argument”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *