I found an interesting argument against the existence of the medieval scholastic God of St. Augustine, St. Anselm, and St. Thomas in another philosophy forum (https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=376142#p376142).

I hope or think it should be ok if I present it here for discussion. A certain user named Hugh_Jidiette posted it in that competitor forum.

According to Hugh_Jidiette, his argument concerns only one particular model of God, namely Classical Theistic, and not other models: "This argument is against the God of classical Theism, not skeptical Theism, or open Theism." (Hugh_Jidiette)

What particularly distinguishes this God is (this God also has the traditional attributes of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience), on the one hand, that he is supreme actuality (an Aristotelian notion), on the other hand, that he displays absolute simplicity (a Neoplatonic notion).

Another important point is that this God, like the Neoplatonic one, is his own final cause or end, that he wills himself first and foremost (only one undifferentiated eternal and timeless act of willing):

“God wills himself necessarily but does not will anything other than Himself necessarily, and all that He does will He wills with respect to Himself.” (Gilson, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy)

A commentary on Plotinus' works explains it this way: Plotinus propounds "the doctrine of the Will of the One (ch. 13–21), its self-generating and self-determining power, which is coextensive with its essence. Though ‘free’ in the sense of unconstrained and self-caused, however, the One cannot be thought of as free to commit evil, or even to act otherwise than it does (ch. 21)." (PLOTINUS - THE ENNEADS TRANSLATED BY STEPHEN MacKENNA. ABRIDGED WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY JOHN DILLON. THE SIXTH ENNEAD; EIGHTH TRACTATE; ON FREE WILL AND THE WILL OF THE ONE; SUMMARY)

Now to the argument, which I would like to put here for discussion:

“1. Omni-benevolence entails permitting the most perfect world possible to obtain.

2. Necessarily, if God is omni-benevolent, God will permit the most perfect world possible to obtain

3. The most perfect world is one with no imperfections, to which its perfection could not be increased.

4. God is perfect- and necessarily omni-benevolent & omnipotent

5. Therefore a world where God alone exists is perfect by definition, since nothing can increase or add to its perfection.

6. The world where God alone exists is a possible world.

7. Therefore God would necessarily permit a world where he alone exists to obtain.

8. A world where God exists alone does not obtain.

9. Therefore God does not exist


1- follows from a definition of omni-benevolence. It does not necessarily by itself entail a perfect world. Theists tend to say 'possible' entails only what is logically possible- so maybe God can't logically eliminate all suffering/evil/imperfection in order to achieve some higher Good/perfection, if that good/perfection is achieved then God in permitting it is not acting contra his omni-benevolence.


2- Follows if the most perfect possible world is something God can actually bring about. Given his omnipotnece entails bringing about all logically possible worlds, the only question is- is the world sans creation possible? Yes (most theists think it actually obtained prior to creation).

3- I think this is pretty trivially true. A world lacking imperfections is presumably perfect. One could argue an empty world lacks imperfections, but is not perfect. But non existence is assumed to be an imperfection, so that doesn't follow.


4&5- God being perfect seems definitional to God. He is that which nothing greater than can be conceived, devoid of deficiency, possessing all the perfections. A world where God exists is by definition devoid of imperfections. Added to this, nothing permitted by God could add to its perfection- it could only ever add gratuitous imperfections. God could not justify that permittance by claiming to achieve some higher good or perfection, since by definition there could be none without suggesting a lack of perfection in the world prior to his permittance, which is to say that God alone is lacking a perfection, which entails he is imperfect, which is a contradiction.


6- Again, it is clearly possible for God to permit a possible world where he alone exists. Many theists believe he did just this prior to creation. To suggest otherwise seems to suggest either such a world is logically impossible, or God is not omnipotent. The latter is clearly impossible for God, the former is clearly wrong.


7- This follows from the above premises. Essentially, what God's omnipotence/omni-benevolence entail is that God would only permit a world where he alone exists. Perhaps you want to appeal to his freedom- but that would only be a freedom to permit gratuitous suffering. Whilst God may have that power, he would no more exercise it than he would commit an act of wanton evil, or an unjustifiable lie. Perhaps the response will be that in creating a world with free agents God is adding some value that did not already exist. But this commits you to the view that a perfect world can be lacking a value- that would of course be an imperfection. Or that God existing alone is not a perfect world. Given God is co-extensive with that world (as it contains nothing else) this implies God is not perfect, which runs into similar problems.


8- is obvious given we are having this conversation.


9- this follows because God has clearly failed to permit a world where he alone exists to obtain. Given God can not fail in this and given God's omni-benevolence entails this is what he would do, we can conclude that no perfect being with the attributes of omnipotence/omni-benevolence could possibly exist and the world exists. Given the world exists, then it is impossible for such a being to exist. These attributes are essential to God, therefore God can not exist.

The necessity here is one of logical entailment, such that to deny it would lead to a contradiction.“ (Hugh_Jidiette)