A Person Than Which None Greater Can Be Conceived

Part 1: God in the Espresso: How Coffee Helped Me Understand the Ontological Argument here

Part 2: Chasing Eden: Why We Long for a World That Never Was - or Was It? here

Part 3: The Ascent of Meaning: What Sacred Mountains and Sports Legends Tell Us About God here

Getting personal 

We are not only obsessed with deciding who the G.O.A.T. is in sports and music, but we also have “great expectations” for perfect behavior from our fellow man, despite the fact that we have never encountered a flawless person. Why do we have such high expectations for a group of lowlifes? 

We need to begin by defining personhood. Philosophers generally agree that a person is a being with a mind, emotions, and will. While each of these essential attributes may distinguish humans from animals, we expect our fellow man to do more than check generic personhood boxes; we expect them to be the best version of themselves. But what does that truly mean? 

I can think of no better distillation of the qualities we expect “persons” to embody than the fruits of the Spirit. St. Paul lists love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. The fruits of the Spirit are the great-making attributes of a person.

While atheists may bristle at the notion that this fruit has deep spiritual roots, there’s little doubt that these standards matter to both the religious and irreligious alike. Interestingly, we regularly encounter people whose trees are barren or whose fruit is rotten, yet we still expect them to produce a 100-fold crop of good fruit. Why?

Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree

Philosophers focus on God’s “great-making attributes,” such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, immutability, impassibility, simplicity, timelessness, and necessity. These attributes render God an abstraction, except for omnibenevolence, which suggests that beyond a necessary Being, He is also kind and inclined to do good. Thus, God exists not in isolation but in relationships with others. 

Benevolence is only possible if you are a person, and omnibenevolence is only possible if you are a Person than that which none greater can be conceived. One could argue that benevolence, beyond kindness and goodness, also includes the other fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Therefore, the fruits of the Spirit represent not only the great-making attributes of a person but also the great-making attributes of a Personal God. 

Critics may argue that I am simply anthropomorphizing God by attributing the fruits of the Spirit to Him. But what if the fruits of the Spirit reveal how God has theomorphized us? What if we possess the great-making qualities of persons because we were created in the image of a great-making Person? If true, God exists because the spiritual fruit doesn’t fall far from the Tree. 

God tells us to “be holy, for I am holy,” but what does that mean? We certainly can’t manifest the Great-making attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence. Still, we can set ourselves apart as image bearers by attempting to exhibit the great-making attributes of personhood perfectly. We may not be able to agree on the definition of God, but we know a person when we see one, and if God is also a Person, then it is far easier to imagine a Person rather than a Being than which none greater can be conceived. 

Summarizing my argument: God is a Being than that which none greater can be conceived, and His greatness is measured by manifesting the intrinsic maximum of each great-making attribute. Omnibenevolence is the one great-making attribute that distinguishes God as a Person. Therefore, God is a Person than which none greater can be conceived. Benevolence is defined as goodness and kindness, but includes all the fruits of the Spirit.  God’s greatness is therefore measured in the way He manifests the intrinsic maximum of the fruits of the Spirit. Humans intuitively recognize that these fruits are not only the great-making attributes of persons but also have a spiritual source, suggesting that we try to maximize them in our lives because we bear the image of a maximally great personal Being. Ultimately, God exists not because we can define Him but because He defines us. 

Eternity in our hearts

Another remarkable attribute of God is His timelessness. Interestingly, mortal beings, whose lives are governed by time, associate timelessness with God even though they have never experienced eternity. Why is that? The book of Ecclesiastes provides insight into this fascination.  

He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)  

Instilling eternity into a heart with a finite number of beats may seem like a cruel joke to mortals, yet it makes perfect sense for beings who are created in God’s image and who are people after His own heart. 

You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.(Augustine)

A convincing lack of physical evidence

One criticism of Anselm’s argument is that things existing in the mind don’t necessarily have to exist in reality. But what if that critique was its strength? We have no evidence of anything perfectly existing, yet we still believe perfection should be the norm. Why would we have otherworldly expectations for the world in which we live? One of the most potent aspects of Anselm’s argument is that imperfect beings conceive of a being than which none greater can be conceived. We are not defining God into existence but rather asking why we have a definition of Him in the first place. The ontological argument is often criticized because it cannot be tested in the real world, but I would argue that the disappointment we experience from our empirical observations is all the physical evidence we need. Ironically, we know a perfect God exists because of a surprising lack of perfection in the world around us. 

Ontological emptiness

While the ontological argument remains an intriguing meditation on God’s existence, we must remember that as Christians, the syllogism became flesh and dwelt among us. He emptied Himself of His great-making attributes by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Remarkably, the Being than which none greater could be conceived did the unthinkable and didn’t consider equality with Greatness something to be grasped. The greatest conceivable Being, rather than showing His superiority, came as One who had no form or majesty, no beauty that we should desire Him, and we despised and esteemed Him not. While the ontological argument logically proves that God exists, His power found in weakness demonstrates that He is worthy of our worship. 

I will continue to pursue the perfect cup of coffee in this life. Still, I realize that I will never taste an Americano than which none greater can be conceived until I find myself in line at the heavenly espresso bar on resurrection morning and Jesus serves me my first cup of the day.

Final Note: Though this series ends here, the ontological journey continues every time we long for more than this world can give. Whether in a sip of coffee or a moment of kindness, echoes of the divine invite us to keep seeking.

Erik Strandness is a physician and Christian apologist who practiced neonatal medicine for more than 20 years and has written three apologetic books. Information about his books can be found at godsscreenplay.com