Main Page

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 17:23, 8 April 2013 by Waldir (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the explain xkcd wiki!

We have collaboratively explained 1510 xkcd comics, and only -5 (-0%) remain. Add yours while there's a chance!

Latest comic

Go to this comic explanation

Ontological Argument
A God who holds the world record for eating the most skateboards is greater than a God who does not hold that record.
Title text: A God who holds the world record for eating the most skateboards is greater than a God who does not hold that record.


Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: First draft. Could use some attention from someone better-versed in theology and/or philosophy.

Ontology is the study of existence. Ontological arguments for the existence of God are those that argue that the nature of existence requires there to be a God. The general formulation of an ontological argument is that there must be some entity that is greater than all other entities, and that that being is, by definition, God.

The ontological argument has never been formally disproven, and Bertrand Russell noted that "it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." This comic proposes a potential fallacy. Suppose that the ontological argument proved that there was a greatest entity, and that entity was God. If this God could disprove the validity of the ontological argument, then there is no longer a valid proof that this entity is God. Therefore, this God that is proved by the ontological argument must not be able to disprove the ontological argument. This comic jokingly suggests that if there was an entity that could disprove the ontological argument, then the entity is "greater" since this entity can do something that the other entity cannot. Now, the original entity can no longer be proved as God by the ontological argument, since there is a greater entity. The ontological argument cannot be a valid proof that the new entity is God either, since this entity can disprove it. If the suggestion was taken at face value, then the result is that the ontological argument cannot prove the existence of God. Along with the title text, this comic pokes fun at the ambiguous notion of "greatness" used in the ontological argument, pointing out that there must be some restrictions on what constitutes "greatness" in order for the ontological argument to prove the existence of God.

This is not an unfamiliar critique to actual proponents of the ontological argument; their response is indeed to give a more precise meaning of "greatness". For example, using it to refer to "goodness" in a moral sense, rather than the trivial sense of "most extreme" as used in the comic.

The format of this argument is similar in character to the kinds of contradictions exploited in Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the Halting problem, and those ideas are related to Russell's paradox. The paradox of "greatness" itself is somewhat similar to the question of "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"


[Megan and Cueball are walking side-by-side]
Megan: ...But wouldn't a God who could find a flaw in the ontological argument be even greater?

Is this out of date? Clicking here will fix that.

New here?

Last 7 days (Top 10)

Lots of people contribute to make this wiki a success. Many of the recent contributors, listed above, have just joined. You can do it too! Create your account here.

You can read a brief introduction about this wiki at explain xkcd. Feel free to sign up for an account and contribute to the wiki! We need explanations for comics, characters, themes, memes and everything in between. If it is referenced in an xkcd web comic, it should be here.

  • List of all comics contains a complete table of all xkcd comics so far and the corresponding explanations. The red links (like this) are missing explanations. Feel free to help out by creating them! Here's how.


Don't be a jerk. There are a lot of comics that don't have set in stone explanations; feel free to put multiple interpretations in the wiki page for each comic.

If you want to talk about a specific comic, use its discussion page.

Please only submit material directly related to —and helping everyone better understand— xkcd... and of course only submit material that can legally be posted (and freely edited.) Off-topic or other inappropriate content is subject to removal or modification at admin discretion, and users who repeatedly post such content will be blocked.

If you need assistance from an admin, post a message to the Admin requests board.

Personal tools


It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal or Bitcoin?