CONGRATS ON 100K subscribers brother Gavin. May our God and Father and Lord Jesus continue to bestow blessings upon you to continue arduously doing His work.
Congrats on 100k subs Dr. Ortlund!! Been here since 10k, so glad to see hoe this channel has grown while remaining committed to the gospel of Christ. Blessings!
@@jacoblee5796 I just went back and read the comments, it does seem many of them have been either removed, or have found their way so far down the comment thread, that they are basically invisible.
Gavin, you know that most of us here are believers in Christ, just a good reminder that you are surrounded by friends. Thank you for what you do as an Apologist for The Way, the Truth, and the Life. Lifting you in prayer. God is with you. Christ be glorified forever.
“For I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand” - Anselm’s Proslogion Godbless Gavin, -A Catholic rooting for you
Augustine said it 700 years earlier, “Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that you may understand.” -Augustine
I think the key point that Ortlund argued but was not sufficiently addressed by Schmid is when Ortlund pointed out that a being “of which nothing greater can be conceived” is categorically different than some other entity/object of which nothing greater of its type can be conceived. The inability to conceive of anything whatsoever greater than God is fundamental to the concept of God. But the inability to conceive of a greater island or greater chair is not fundamental to a chair or islands. I don’t think Mr. Schmid really grappled with that, in fact in his immediate response after Ortlund’s point on this matter, Schmid gave the example of the ACT score, which I think shows he did not really engage with Ortlunds point on that matter. This was towards the end of the conversation so id like to have seen what Schmid would have done with more time.
Also, so what if we can conceive of a maximally great chair or island. That has no impact on our lives. A maximally great chair is a blooming awesome chair, ok, so what. It impacts nothing about reality. A being of which nothing greater can be conceived is the foundation of reality itself.
Great job to both of you! Regarding Joe's question about why "three persons" in the Godhead is considered to be an intrinsic maximum in Christianity, Richard Swinburne has an intriguing a priori argument for the Trinity that I think addresses this. To my understanding, it goes something like this: A perfect being must be perfectly loving. Perfect love must be both mutual and unselfish, which means that it must be shared between 3 persons (since each person must love each other person and also share in love for that person with another person). 4 persons would not be better than 3 persons because the 4th person could not exist by necessity. Thus, 3 must be both the minimum and the maximum number of persons in the Godhead.
I actually think that trying to make an a priori argument for this misses the point. The objection about the Trinity itself misses the point. This whole conversation is about the "being" or "nature" of God. What God is. There's only one God; his being is one, his nature is one. God's persons (Father, Son, Spirit) are not his nature, and so aren't relevant factors when discussing the being/nature of God. There's not three Gods, and three-person-ness is not an attribute of God's being. Each person fully subsists in the divine nature, and if three-person-ness were an attribute of God's being, each person would have this attribute! I am a little skeptical about the idea that the Trinity is obtainable from logic alone. Swinburne's argument is a helpful meditation on why it's appropriate that God is Father, Son, and Spirit, but the Bible seems to present this as a thing that's purely revealed (ie special revelation) rather than a thing that could be deduced (ie general revelation).
@@SocraticBeliever Oh no, I like the ontological argument! I meant that a priori arguments trying to prove the necessity of the Trinity seem to be both tenuous and unnecessary for the ontological argument to work. The ontological argument is concerned with God's being and attributes. These things are (acc to Nicene philosophy) all factors of God's nature. God's *persons* are not his nature, and so trying to apply the ontological argument's great-making-principles to God's persons misses the point. The one God is Father, Son, and Spirit; three persons, one nature. Each person fully participates in the Divine Nature about which the ontological argument speaks. Once you start smearing these together, you run into seemingly-impossible problems, like "what's logically necessary and great-making about God being three persons rather than four?" or "Why is the eternal begottenness of the Son from the Father a logically required great-making principle?" These questions can't be answered because we're mixing up the categories.
Schmid’s second objection is entirely without force. Whether you agree or disagree with his assertion that reals are not better than mentals, God remains proven and powerful. Specifically, if God can remain the greatest possible being and enact his will etc all without entering the realm of nature, cool. He is still proven to exist with all the great making properties we care about, so the argument succeeds.
Great debate. It's a shame the moderator pulled the plug just as it was getting interesting... Thanks for all you do, Gavin; you're such an encouragement. And congrats on 100K subs!
Glad to see Vince is alive and well, when I was starting to research my Christianity and why I believed what I did I followed Ravi Zacharias and back then I didn’t pay too much to Vince but later in life I looked back and found Vince and his positions and videos helped me immensely, not only for myself to better ground my faith but to also help give a defense as to why I accepted Christ as true. Thank you brother in Christ, hope to see you more, God bless
I'd really like to see a video listing all the early Catholic Saints whose writings have placed them under Anathema to the current doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Has the Church ripped those poor souls out of heaven? How many saints are writhing in hellfire as current Catholics continue praying to them, thinking they have the ear of God? Do any early fathers escape the net of the Church? Hope you see this comment, Gavin.
Would love for Gavin to finish his thought on why meeinongianism is not implicitly required in comparing the greatness of something in the mind vs extra mental
Dr. Ortlund, in Taoism we talk about, "being used by the Tao." Although, the Tao doesn't really use anybody. It's as much a servant as it is a master. It's also both and neither. We're semantic weasels, sometimes. It really frustrates critical thinkers. =D
The Solo-Know parody argument was fascinating. It took me awhile to come up with, but I think I have something of a rebuttal to it. It seems to me that the purpose of the ontological argument (as formulated by Anselm) is to show that, along with the other great making qualities, God possesses the attribute of existence. The Solo-Know, on the other hand, according to Joe's definition in the video, possesses only one attribute in its essence, namely the attribute of knowledge. Running the argument ultimately concludes in a being that possesses two attributes: existence and knowledge. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument results in a being that, definitionally, cannot be a Solo-Know. The Solo-Know is categorically excluded from the attribute of existence before the argument can even be applied. Unless I am mistaken, Anselm's ontological argument relies on the idea that existence is a great making attribute and, therefore, the argument cannot be applied to such things as Solo-Knows. Would love to hear from someone who can tell me if that makes sense :)
Joe's a very strong thinker and once again I'm happy to see him providing such convincing counter-arguments. In my view his arguments are stronger, but its nice that Ortlund concedes from the beginning that they aren't convincing arguments even in his view lol :P. I like how Ortlund is so atheist friendly
I just dont understand why not drop the greatest idea approach and formulate the argument diffrently Like 1. God is the greatest being 2. To be the greatest being you have to be able to exsist( because being wich exsist is more great than being that,does not exsis) 3. Therefore god exsist
I think philosophy itself and also if you do believe in a rational mind capable of being objective are arguments for the existence of God. They are arguments against materialist determinism.
I guess a question might be how can the physical mind conceive of abstract ideas and use imagination if nothing greater than the matter that we perceive through our senses exists, if there is no higher realm? Also is there some connection with Plato's realm of higher forms in ontological argument?
Hi Gavin. I know this isn't on topic per se but am interested in your feedback, or anyone else's feedback in the comments to my question. I would like to know what else I could read to try and understand what some of the earliest fathers believed about church structure/meetings/priorities/function etc - ideally from the first 200 years, stretching to 300 at a push. I have read Ignatius of Antiochs 7 epistles, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, First Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas - and obviously the New Testament. I'd like to know where else to start a few recommendations would be welcome. I'm a protestant, raised in evangelic denomination, and have been in a baptist denomination for the last 11 Years. I am interested in gleaning a deep and nuanced understanding of what the earliest expressions of church looked like in the first few centuries and what some of their most dearly held collective convictions and priorities were. Thanks so much. Love your channel. It has helped me so much these last few months, and I'd like to do some reading of my own. 😊 Thanks and blessings. Tom
I honestly did not get any clarity on the topic. All I know is that it is necessary to study logic, metaphysics, and even epistemology to know whether or not the modal ontological argument is possible evidence for the necessary existence of a maximally great being.
A shame to just get to the interesting bits and then have to end the discussion. Propose moving to an after show discussion that can be listened to online in future if the panel wants to continue the discussion
So I am yet to hear a convincing rebuttal to the reverse modal ontological argument. If I missed it in this video I would appreciate someone referencing it. That said I have difficulty accepting 1:10:30. It seems so patently obvious that finite things cannot never reach maximal greatness. Joe is skilled at making that which is on face value seem totally implausible somewhat plausible. I do buy the "solo know" example though and I think it a very strong objection. As much as I love the ontological argument - it may be time to put it to rest again. It at least shows what Plantinga says it does - that believe in God is rational.
I think that the issue for the Solo-Know is that it stops too soon. Sure, we'll say that the Solo-Know could possibly exist, and would be better if it, in fact, exists, and so it does. But carry the logic on. It would be better for the Solo-Know to not only know, but to have power to act; power is a great-making principle. And would be better for the Solo-Know to have supreme love, mercy, glory, justice, kindness, joy, and the rest; omni-benevolence is a great-making principle. Soon, we're just talking about God.
I think Dr. Craig has given a plausible response to the reverse ontological argument. I will do my best to summarize. Anything that's logically coherent exists in a "possible world." So there is a possible world in which humans ride dinosaurs, but there is no possible work that has married bachelors. The power of the ontological argument is that it shows that if the concept of a maximally great being is coherent, then that being must exist. In order for there to be a possible world in which a maximally great being does not exist, as is required by the reverse argument, it has to be shown that a maximally great being is incoherent. So it doesn't really get you anywhere.
@@ikemeitz5287 No I am not sure that your criticism holds. The moment you "carry the logic on" you are not dealing with a Solo-Know anymore. The best version of a Solo-Know has to be one who knows all and nothing else as per the definition of a Solo-Know. Unless you want to argue that Solo-Know should not be classified as a "Solo-Know" type but as a sub-category in a bigger type of "Being". In which case all the great making properties of being would apply necessarily to Solo-know and then one cannot conceivably limit Solo-Know to knowledge alone. I am sympathetic to that claim and what follows would make sense to me. Thanks for prompting me in this direction. I have not thought about it before.
@ Good point! I was definitely considering the Solo-Know a (potential) "being" and therefore subject to other great-making properties. (My intuition says that simply applying the ontological argument to the Solo-Know requires this "being"-ness to make sense. But I'd need to think that through more carefully to be sure.) I think I'm just trying to resist the idea that the logic of the ontological argument can be applied so-far-and-no-further. There's a way to apply this to the island or the ACT score as well. The greatest island that can be conceived would exist, yes. But it'd also be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, etc. until you've reached God himself. Likewise, it'd be even better if your ACT score, more than just being 36, could also somehow love you, know you, determine your future, etc. It's a little silly when we apply it to silly parody examples, but it seems (to me!) like the most consistent way to apply the logic.
As far as the symmetry problem, yeah, I'm with you, I am struggling to think of a good response. I think Gavin's reference to "no symmetry to be broken in the first place" is a good path to go down, but I'm not a skilled enough philosopher think of how!
Schmidt's response in the second segment was really disjointed. I'm not sure he actually succeeded in articulating his objection. It seemed he was struggling mightily to articulate it and seemed to say the same thing multiple times. Maybe i didn't follow what he was going for, but it seemed like he was really struggling to defend his objection.
This is a discussion for brainiacs! Good attitudes from both gentlemen in sharing. I do think that focusing on this sort of topic might not be too edifying considering how Jesus emphasized the point of living the truth in such ways as virtuous acts for the poor, the suffering, the imprisoned and evangelizing all manner of people. The era when Anselm and Aquinas lived, when monastic scholars could think about a thousand wonderful ideas while the Church burnt people alive for heresy and the life of the poor was incredibly rough, could have perhaps needed fewer philosophical monks and more "doers of the Word" living out the practical Gospel needed by people of all types - fools, idiots, thieves, soldiers, and the rulers - who were crying out in their souls for God's Love incarnated in his followers. I'm not criticizing the speakers at all, but this thought hit me when I listened to the video.
To comment on the Trinity issue. This whole conversation is about the "being" or "nature" of God. What God is. There's only one God; his being is one, his nature is one. God's persons (Father, Son, Spirit) are not his nature, and so aren't relevant factors when discussing the being/nature of God. There's not three Gods, and *three-person-ness is not an attribute of God's being.* Each person fully subsists in the divine nature, and if three-person-ness were an attribute of God's being, each person would have this attribute!
" we 1:03:33 can get an equally convincing reverse argument for God's non-existence and in fact God's impossibility right hey God's 1:03:38 either necessary or impossible same first premise so we agree with you with that uh Second premise hey God's 1:03:45 non-existence is possible right you guys said God's existence was possible now I'm just saying God's non-existence is 1:03:50 possible but look at that if God's non-existence is possible that means God isn't necessary right to say that God's 1:03:56 necessary is to say that God couldn't have failed to exist in other words God's non-existence is impossible so if 1:04:04 we say that God's existence is possible then it follows that God's not necessary and so since we have that first premise 1:04:10 that God's either necessary or impossible and since God's not necessary it follows that God is impossible so 1:04:17 then look at that we just have a a compell competing argument with the same 1:04:22 first premise the second premise seems just as plausible that God possibly exists and that God possibly doesn't 1:04:27 exist there doesn't seem to be any reason to prefer one of these over the other uh at least absent some independent argument um but just in 1:04:34 terms of the modal ontological argument that certainly doesn't give us one a reason to prefer one of these over the other and so then the arguments are a 1:04:41 wash uh we shouldn't we shouldn't accept the original argument's conclusion on the basis of its premises precisely 1:04:47 because there's an equally convincing argument for the opposite conclusion so that's the main objection" So this is the parody argument by majesty of reason, it commits here a modal scope error. The argument assumes that if God's non-existence is possible, then God is not necessary. However, modal logic dictates that necessity and possibility do not work symmetrically in this way. Just because something could be the case does not mean it must be the case. The argument incorrectly infers necessity from mere possibility. Also Premise 2 begs the question because in modal logic if God is necessary, then His non-existence is not even possible. So, by assuming that God's non-existence is possible, the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. The parody argument's don't work.
Divine simplicity seems to appropriately answer the "justice vs mercy" objection. When we say "God's attribute of justice" what we actually mean is "God's just nature as it involves the other attributes of his nature." It's not that they're really "proportioned," I think, it's that each finds its fullest extreme in the union with the other attributes. Also, this supposed conflict is a main story in the Bible! How can God, who "will by no means clear the guilty" also be "slow to anger" (Ex 34:6-7)??? Why would God "pass over former sins" while being "just" (Rom 3:25)? Because God's great justice and great mercy are simultaneously seen in the greatest possible degree at the atoning death of Jesus on the cross. God justly dealt punishment, God mercifully took the punishment.
It seems like the conclusion of parody arguments inevitably leads to a description of God. Wouldn’t a maximally great island have a mind? Wouldn’t this mind be omniscient? Omnipotent? Not intrinsically limited by physical qualities? At worst you have an incarnation/pantheistic style description of God, right?
I've never been impressed with the Ontological Argument (although I'm a believing theist). I suspect that whatever force it does have is borrowed from versions of the Cosmological Argument: the idea that finite, contingent being must be grounded in an Infinite, Necessary Being.
Is God's non-existence possible or the existence of an intelligent creator acting with some level of purpose, design and agency? At a superficial level this could just be apparently true. But I guess this might be an argument against ontological argument, that an atheist can conceive of everything we experience occurring without purpose and design, yet acting in an underlying organised structure doesn't make it true that this is even possible? Similarly someone could conceive of an infinite past without need of a Primary cause or unmoved mover, but this concept doesn't make it necessarily true or even possible in reality?
The Ontological Argument can’t work because God’s Omni attribute of Omniscience clashes with God’s Free Will. And God’s Omni attribute of Omnibenevolence clashes with his choice to create a Hell and the People who would go there.
@@jaidengabriel1675 If God is Omniscient, then He has always known what He will do. Because of that He can never do different or other than what He always knew He would do. So for example, God always knew that He would create this World and because of that He could not refrain and not create this World. Had God not created this World, then God would have been wrong in His knowledge that He would create this World. Therefore, God cannot have Freedom of the Will if He is Omniscient.
Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Revelation 22 1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him *_Why is no one sitting in the Throne Of God? It only has water flowing from it._*
@@SilverRaysBeauty44 I mean Trent Horn debated Jay, Erick Ybarra debated Jay, looks like Gavin is the only one who’s too scared to debate Jay because he knows he’ll get destroyed.
1. This has nothing to do with the debate. 2. Why aren’t you supporting a Christian in this context? 3. John 6 is not, and never will be about the Lord’s supper and or Eucharist.
@@justchilling704 The Bread of Life is the Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper. Even Gavin has got that much right. What substance did Jesus Christ instruct the Bread of Life is in the Bread of Life Discourse? a) bread and wine (Gavin/Protestant) b) Jesus' living flesh and blood (Catholic and Orthodox)
Language used to throw off those whom Christ did not want to reveal the truth to. Not plain literalness. Christ is the door, there is no door to walk through. Christ is living water. There is no physical spring to sip from. They are analogous of being in Christ, of having that connection through the Spirit, of trusting in Him.
@@ethanrichard4950 Jesus Christ's language: "eat my flesh and drink my blood", "for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink". I'll stick with trusting Jesus Christ's instructions on how to identify the Eucharist by Its substance, not 1500's Protestant confusion techniques.
the ontological argument fails hilariously. This is the usual theist nonsense of: "It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. God exists as an idea in the mind. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a being-than-which-none-greater-can-be-imagined that does exist). But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the being-than-which-none-greater-can-be-imagined.) Therefore, God exists." So it stars with the baseless claim that God is the "greatest" of all beings that can be imagined. Imagined things don't have to exist. So, no reason to assume that this god exists. This assumes existence is better than non-existence. No evidence for that at all. It's just a baseless opinion. I can imagine something greater than their god as soon as they define their god. "Greatest" is simply meaningless, since anyone can always add something. The only way the theist can get around this is by not defining their god. This is why some christian try to make their god as vague as possible, e.g. "the ground of being". Alas, they can never not describe their god.
@@budzwithbudz6729don't engage velkyn. He's trolling through all of the Christian channels and mainly tries to convince himself. I've told him more than once that his arguments aren't convincing for anyone who has more than a superficial knowledge about these things. It's also clear that he obviously doesn't understand the ontological argument. If he was convinced of his atheism, he wouldn't be here.
@@budzwithbudz6729 I have read the bible, and the various books in the bible present many different versions of this god as do the beliefs of christians. Is it omnipotent or not? Is it omniscient or not? Does it change or not? Is it for or against slavery? Does it love children or does it murder them for things they didn't do and had no control over?
@@budzwithbudz6729 Actually, it's easy to show it doesn't exist. Not one event this god supposedly caused can be show to have happened. So we have absence of evidence for your god. We also have evidence of absence since at any time a believer tries to claim noe of these events happened, we can see that no one noticed it and people were doing completely different things. Show your imaginary friend exists, Bud. I'll be happy to wait.
The debated ended right when it started! Too much time spent on definitions and the allotted time was split unevenly. Very sad Gavin! This could have been a great conversation.
CONGRATS ON 100K subscribers brother Gavin. May our God and Father and Lord Jesus continue to bestow blessings upon you to continue arduously doing His work.
Here’s to 900k more 💪😤😤😤
I love conversations like this. It's way better than debate-like style
I strongly agree with you
We need Gavin Ortlund! Thank you, Lord!
Gavin Ortlund our blessed brother. ❤
“Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that you may understand.” -Augustine
yep, every cult says this. Curious how it always fails.
I understand how cults could use this for their own goals, but I hear the heart behind this more than anything.
@@michaelkvalvik7358 and any cultist will hear the "heart" behind this nonsenes since they want to believe those like them.
@velkyn1 If, hypothetically, someone who we knew was not in a cult was saying this, do you think there is value derived from the statement?
@@velkyn1Please stop talking about things you have absolutely no knowledge on.
Just finished reading sections of Anselms Proslogion with my 11th grade Historical Theology class. Most of them really liked it!
Congrats on 100k subs Dr. Ortlund!! Been here since 10k, so glad to see hoe this channel has grown while remaining committed to the gospel of Christ. Blessings!
me too! I wish I would have documented his subscriber climb!
Congratulations on 100K, Gavin!!!
I much prefer reading the comments here than the hate filled ones on the Unbelievable channel. Thanks, Gavin.
Why do consider them hate filled?
@@jacoblee5796 Because many of them are, not sure how to answer that lol
@@brando3342 I just came from that comment section and didn’t see any hate filled comments. So I was wondering why you consider them hate filled.
@@jacoblee5796 I just went back and read the comments, it does seem many of them have been either removed, or have found their way so far down the comment thread, that they are basically invisible.
yeah the only mad ones are the ones who are mad that the debate didn't go on (I agree)
This is exciting, thank you Ortlund for your work!
Gavin, you know that most of us here are believers in Christ, just a good reminder that you are surrounded by friends. Thank you for what you do as an Apologist for The Way, the Truth, and the Life. Lifting you in prayer. God is with you. Christ be glorified forever.
God bless you immensely, Gavin. Keep up the good work 🙏❤️✝️
You, mike winger, and wes huff should all start a podcast, that would be so, so amazing.
Thank you for your work Dr Ortlund
Woohoo praise the Lord for 100k. May the Lord continue to keep you and this ministry Gavin!
“For I do not seek to understand in order to believe, but I believe in order to understand” - Anselm’s Proslogion
Godbless Gavin, -A Catholic rooting for you
Augustine said it 700 years earlier, “Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that you may understand.” -Augustine
@ Yes, both Anselm and Augustine approached theology in a humble and admirable manner.
I think the key point that Ortlund argued but was not sufficiently addressed by Schmid is when Ortlund pointed out that a being “of which nothing greater can be conceived” is categorically different than some other entity/object of which nothing greater of its type can be conceived. The inability to conceive of anything whatsoever greater than God is fundamental to the concept of God. But the inability to conceive of a greater island or greater chair is not fundamental to a chair or islands. I don’t think Mr. Schmid really grappled with that, in fact in his immediate response after Ortlund’s point on this matter, Schmid gave the example of the ACT score, which I think shows he did not really engage with Ortlunds point on that matter. This was towards the end of the conversation so id like to have seen what Schmid would have done with more time.
He seemed to get flustered after this point
Also, so what if we can conceive of a maximally great chair or island. That has no impact on our lives. A maximally great chair is a blooming awesome chair, ok, so what. It impacts nothing about reality. A being of which nothing greater can be conceived is the foundation of reality itself.
@@EowyntheFair88yea Gavin really casually just dismissed the parody objections as not being that forceful after Joe had stated they were forceful.
Excited for this one. Thanks dr. Gavin :)
Congrats on 100k Gavin!
Great job to both of you! Regarding Joe's question about why "three persons" in the Godhead is considered to be an intrinsic maximum in Christianity, Richard Swinburne has an intriguing a priori argument for the Trinity that I think addresses this. To my understanding, it goes something like this: A perfect being must be perfectly loving. Perfect love must be both mutual and unselfish, which means that it must be shared between 3 persons (since each person must love each other person and also share in love for that person with another person). 4 persons would not be better than 3 persons because the 4th person could not exist by necessity. Thus, 3 must be both the minimum and the maximum number of persons in the Godhead.
I actually think that trying to make an a priori argument for this misses the point. The objection about the Trinity itself misses the point. This whole conversation is about the "being" or "nature" of God. What God is. There's only one God; his being is one, his nature is one. God's persons (Father, Son, Spirit) are not his nature, and so aren't relevant factors when discussing the being/nature of God. There's not three Gods, and three-person-ness is not an attribute of God's being.
Each person fully subsists in the divine nature, and if three-person-ness were an attribute of God's being, each person would have this attribute!
I am a little skeptical about the idea that the Trinity is obtainable from logic alone. Swinburne's argument is a helpful meditation on why it's appropriate that God is Father, Son, and Spirit, but the Bible seems to present this as a thing that's purely revealed (ie special revelation) rather than a thing that could be deduced (ie general revelation).
@ I’m a little confused by this. Which a priori argument are you saying misses the point? The ontological argument itself?
@@SocraticBeliever Oh no, I like the ontological argument! I meant that a priori arguments trying to prove the necessity of the Trinity seem to be both tenuous and unnecessary for the ontological argument to work.
The ontological argument is concerned with God's being and attributes. These things are (acc to Nicene philosophy) all factors of God's nature. God's *persons* are not his nature, and so trying to apply the ontological argument's great-making-principles to God's persons misses the point. The one God is Father, Son, and Spirit; three persons, one nature. Each person fully participates in the Divine Nature about which the ontological argument speaks.
Once you start smearing these together, you run into seemingly-impossible problems, like "what's logically necessary and great-making about God being three persons rather than four?" or "Why is the eternal begottenness of the Son from the Father a logically required great-making principle?" These questions can't be answered because we're mixing up the categories.
The Trinity is a doctrine of Satan. What makes the goats different from the sheep? Read Matthew 25:31-46.
Schmid’s second objection is entirely without force. Whether you agree or disagree with his assertion that reals are not better than mentals, God remains proven and powerful.
Specifically, if God can remain the greatest possible being and enact his will etc all without entering the realm of nature, cool. He is still proven to exist with all the great making properties we care about, so the argument succeeds.
Great debate. It's a shame the moderator pulled the plug just as it was getting interesting...
Thanks for all you do, Gavin; you're such an encouragement. And congrats on 100K subs!
Yeah 100k 🥳
Wow, Joe talks faster than my brain can process the information.
He does that to distract from how shallow yet convoluted his arguments actually are.
You finally got to 100k. About time….
Glad to see Vince is alive and well, when I was starting to research my Christianity and why I believed what I did I followed Ravi Zacharias and back then I didn’t pay too much to Vince but later in life I looked back and found Vince and his positions and videos helped me immensely, not only for myself to better ground my faith but to also help give a defense as to why I accepted Christ as true. Thank you brother in Christ, hope to see you more, God bless
Vince looks extremely Italian, Mediterranean genetics in action. There's no doubt about his ancestry.
I'd really like to see a video listing all the early Catholic Saints whose writings have placed them under Anathema to the current doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Has the Church ripped those poor souls out of heaven? How many saints are writhing in hellfire as current Catholics continue praying to them, thinking they have the ear of God? Do any early fathers escape the net of the Church? Hope you see this comment, Gavin.
@00:12:07 why is Spider-Man staring deeply into my soul???
I got to watch this at home later today
Would love for Gavin to finish his thought on why meeinongianism is not implicitly required in comparing the greatness of something in the mind vs extra mental
Dr. Ortlund. Do you have office hours? Would love to speak with you.
My head is about to disintegrate. 🤯
Non-existence is underrated. =)
Joe saying that the God cannot both be maximally just and maximally merciful at the same time...does not the cross of Christ solve this very issue?
Or the fact that God gave us chance after chance without completely wiping us out in the first place.
The best argument for god in my opinion
No offense intended here but you don't need fancy editing and music to spice up your videos. They are already awesome.
Pray for Mr. Schmid.
He's perfectly safe in the hands of God-isn't he? Surely you're not suggesting that God will only care for him unto eternity if he becomes a believer.
Glory to God
Dr. Ortlund, in Taoism we talk about, "being used by the Tao." Although, the Tao doesn't really use anybody. It's as much a servant as it is a master. It's also both and neither. We're semantic weasels, sometimes. It really frustrates critical thinkers. =D
Jesus is described as both a servant and master in the Bible
@everetunknown5890 Yes! =)
@everetunknown5890 The Tao does nothing, yet leaves nothing undone. It follows only itself.
The Solo-Know parody argument was fascinating. It took me awhile to come up with, but I think I have something of a rebuttal to it. It seems to me that the purpose of the ontological argument (as formulated by Anselm) is to show that, along with the other great making qualities, God possesses the attribute of existence. The Solo-Know, on the other hand, according to Joe's definition in the video, possesses only one attribute in its essence, namely the attribute of knowledge. Running the argument ultimately concludes in a being that possesses two attributes: existence and knowledge. Therefore, the conclusion of the argument results in a being that, definitionally, cannot be a Solo-Know. The Solo-Know is categorically excluded from the attribute of existence before the argument can even be applied. Unless I am mistaken, Anselm's ontological argument relies on the idea that existence is a great making attribute and, therefore, the argument cannot be applied to such things as Solo-Knows. Would love to hear from someone who can tell me if that makes sense :)
Joe's a very strong thinker and once again I'm happy to see him providing such convincing counter-arguments. In my view his arguments are stronger, but its nice that Ortlund concedes from the beginning that they aren't convincing arguments even in his view lol :P. I like how Ortlund is so atheist friendly
He is friendly to everyone lol, love the humility of Gavin. ❤
You seem like a respectful fellow but Im quite sad that you misrepresented William Lane Craig in one of Galvin's previous videos.
Calling Joe a “strong thinker” is like calling Fauci an honest doctor 😂
@@Hola-ro6yv Bad representative of Christ
I just dont understand why not drop the greatest idea approach and formulate the argument diffrently
Like
1. God is the greatest being
2. To be the greatest being you have to be able to exsist( because being wich exsist is more great than being that,does not exsis)
3. Therefore god exsist
I think philosophy itself and also if you do believe in a rational mind capable of being objective are arguments for the existence of God. They are arguments against materialist determinism.
I guess a question might be how can the physical mind conceive of abstract ideas and use imagination if nothing greater than the matter that we perceive through our senses exists, if there is no higher realm? Also is there some connection with Plato's realm of higher forms in ontological argument?
Hello Gavin. I'm a young man. Could you put out a video on pornography? Been struggling with it. Need to get rid of it.
th-cam.com/video/4Fr0wAJiZM0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=J6B9UwSjBlppV6X0
Victory is a really good channel. Matt Fradd is a legend
Hi Gavin. I know this isn't on topic per se but am interested in your feedback, or anyone else's feedback in the comments to my question. I would like to know what else I could read to try and understand what some of the earliest fathers believed about church structure/meetings/priorities/function etc - ideally from the first 200 years, stretching to 300 at a push. I have read Ignatius of Antiochs 7 epistles, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, First Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas - and obviously the New Testament. I'd like to know where else to start a few recommendations would be welcome. I'm a protestant, raised in evangelic denomination, and have been in a baptist denomination for the last 11 Years. I am interested in gleaning a deep and nuanced understanding of what the earliest expressions of church looked like in the first few centuries and what some of their most dearly held collective convictions and priorities were. Thanks so much. Love your channel. It has helped me so much these last few months, and I'd like to do some reading of my own. 😊 Thanks and blessings. Tom
I honestly did not get any clarity on the topic. All I know is that it is necessary to study logic, metaphysics, and even epistemology to know whether or not the modal ontological argument is possible evidence for the necessary existence of a maximally great being.
Seems very similar to the dual v nondual debate.
A shame to just get to the interesting bits and then have to end the discussion. Propose moving to an after show discussion that can be listened to online in future if the panel wants to continue the discussion
Correct. It was just getting good.
So I am yet to hear a convincing rebuttal to the reverse modal ontological argument. If I missed it in this video I would appreciate someone referencing it. That said I have difficulty accepting 1:10:30. It seems so patently obvious that finite things cannot never reach maximal greatness. Joe is skilled at making that which is on face value seem totally implausible somewhat plausible. I do buy the "solo know" example though and I think it a very strong objection. As much as I love the ontological argument - it may be time to put it to rest again. It at least shows what Plantinga says it does - that believe in God is rational.
I think that the issue for the Solo-Know is that it stops too soon.
Sure, we'll say that the Solo-Know could possibly exist, and would be better if it, in fact, exists, and so it does. But carry the logic on. It would be better for the Solo-Know to not only know, but to have power to act; power is a great-making principle. And would be better for the Solo-Know to have supreme love, mercy, glory, justice, kindness, joy, and the rest; omni-benevolence is a great-making principle.
Soon, we're just talking about God.
I think Dr. Craig has given a plausible response to the reverse ontological argument. I will do my best to summarize. Anything that's logically coherent exists in a "possible world." So there is a possible world in which humans ride dinosaurs, but there is no possible work that has married bachelors. The power of the ontological argument is that it shows that if the concept of a maximally great being is coherent, then that being must exist. In order for there to be a possible world in which a maximally great being does not exist, as is required by the reverse argument, it has to be shown that a maximally great being is incoherent. So it doesn't really get you anywhere.
@@ikemeitz5287 No I am not sure that your criticism holds. The moment you "carry the logic on" you are not dealing with a Solo-Know anymore. The best version of a Solo-Know has to be one who knows all and nothing else as per the definition of a Solo-Know. Unless you want to argue that Solo-Know should not be classified as a "Solo-Know" type but as a sub-category in a bigger type of "Being". In which case all the great making properties of being would apply necessarily to Solo-know and then one cannot conceivably limit Solo-Know to knowledge alone. I am sympathetic to that claim and what follows would make sense to me. Thanks for prompting me in this direction. I have not thought about it before.
@ Good point! I was definitely considering the Solo-Know a (potential) "being" and therefore subject to other great-making properties. (My intuition says that simply applying the ontological argument to the Solo-Know requires this "being"-ness to make sense. But I'd need to think that through more carefully to be sure.)
I think I'm just trying to resist the idea that the logic of the ontological argument can be applied so-far-and-no-further. There's a way to apply this to the island or the ACT score as well. The greatest island that can be conceived would exist, yes. But it'd also be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, etc. until you've reached God himself. Likewise, it'd be even better if your ACT score, more than just being 36, could also somehow love you, know you, determine your future, etc.
It's a little silly when we apply it to silly parody examples, but it seems (to me!) like the most consistent way to apply the logic.
As far as the symmetry problem, yeah, I'm with you, I am struggling to think of a good response. I think Gavin's reference to "no symmetry to be broken in the first place" is a good path to go down, but I'm not a skilled enough philosopher think of how!
Hey Gavin! Are you going to respond to Alex o Connor?
They should just keep endlessly responding to each other in videos 😅
I think Gavin posted somewhere that he is currently travelling abroad so he wasn't able to make a proper reply right now.
Another wannabe philosopher child like Schmid 😂
Schmidt's response in the second segment was really disjointed. I'm not sure he actually succeeded in articulating his objection. It seemed he was struggling mightily to articulate it and seemed to say the same thing multiple times. Maybe i didn't follow what he was going for, but it seemed like he was really struggling to defend his objection.
This is a discussion for brainiacs! Good attitudes from both gentlemen in sharing. I do think that focusing on this sort of topic might not be too edifying considering how Jesus emphasized the point of living the truth in such ways as virtuous acts for the poor, the suffering, the imprisoned and evangelizing all manner of people. The era when Anselm and Aquinas lived, when monastic scholars could think about a thousand wonderful ideas while the Church burnt people alive for heresy and the life of the poor was incredibly rough, could have perhaps needed fewer philosophical monks and more "doers of the Word" living out the practical Gospel needed by people of all types - fools, idiots, thieves, soldiers, and the rulers - who were crying out in their souls for God's Love incarnated in his followers. I'm not criticizing the speakers at all, but this thought hit me when I listened to the video.
To comment on the Trinity issue. This whole conversation is about the "being" or "nature" of God. What God is. There's only one God; his being is one, his nature is one. God's persons (Father, Son, Spirit) are not his nature, and so aren't relevant factors when discussing the being/nature of God. There's not three Gods, and *three-person-ness is not an attribute of God's being.*
Each person fully subsists in the divine nature, and if three-person-ness were an attribute of God's being, each person would have this attribute!
" we
1:03:33
can get an equally convincing reverse argument for God's non-existence and in fact God's impossibility right hey God's
1:03:38
either necessary or impossible same first premise so we agree with you with that uh Second premise hey God's
1:03:45
non-existence is possible right you guys said God's existence was possible now I'm just saying God's non-existence is
1:03:50
possible but look at that if God's non-existence is possible that means God isn't necessary right to say that God's
1:03:56
necessary is to say that God couldn't have failed to exist in other words God's non-existence is impossible so if
1:04:04
we say that God's existence is possible then it follows that God's not necessary and so since we have that first premise
1:04:10
that God's either necessary or impossible and since God's not necessary it follows that God is impossible so
1:04:17
then look at that we just have a a compell competing argument with the same
1:04:22
first premise the second premise seems just as plausible that God possibly exists and that God possibly doesn't
1:04:27
exist there doesn't seem to be any reason to prefer one of these over the other uh at least absent some independent argument um but just in
1:04:34
terms of the modal ontological argument that certainly doesn't give us one a reason to prefer one of these over the other and so then the arguments are a
1:04:41
wash uh we shouldn't we shouldn't accept the original argument's conclusion on the basis of its premises precisely
1:04:47
because there's an equally convincing argument for the opposite conclusion so that's the main objection" So this is the parody argument by majesty of reason, it commits here a modal scope error. The argument assumes that if God's non-existence is possible, then God is not necessary. However, modal logic dictates that necessity and possibility do not work symmetrically in this way. Just because something could be the case does not mean it must be the case. The argument incorrectly infers necessity from mere possibility. Also Premise 2 begs the question because in modal logic if God is necessary, then His non-existence is not even possible. So, by assuming that God's non-existence is possible, the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. The parody argument's don't work.
Spiderman obviously exists, he’s in the video itself
Divine simplicity seems to appropriately answer the "justice vs mercy" objection. When we say "God's attribute of justice" what we actually mean is "God's just nature as it involves the other attributes of his nature." It's not that they're really "proportioned," I think, it's that each finds its fullest extreme in the union with the other attributes.
Also, this supposed conflict is a main story in the Bible! How can God, who "will by no means clear the guilty" also be "slow to anger" (Ex 34:6-7)??? Why would God "pass over former sins" while being "just" (Rom 3:25)? Because God's great justice and great mercy are simultaneously seen in the greatest possible degree at the atoning death of Jesus on the cross. God justly dealt punishment, God mercifully took the punishment.
Imagine an enormous bear. Can you imagine a bigger bear? That means the bigger bear exists.
It seems like the conclusion of parody arguments inevitably leads to a description of God. Wouldn’t a maximally great island have a mind? Wouldn’t this mind be omniscient? Omnipotent? Not intrinsically limited by physical qualities? At worst you have an incarnation/pantheistic style description of God, right?
Another victory for the mighty Tottenham Hotspur! Come on!
Ended way to soon,
I've never been impressed with the Ontological Argument (although I'm a believing theist). I suspect that whatever force it does have is borrowed from versions of the Cosmological Argument: the idea that finite, contingent being must be grounded in an Infinite, Necessary Being.
Is God's non-existence possible or the existence of an intelligent creator acting with some level of purpose, design and agency? At a superficial level this could just be apparently true. But I guess this might be an argument against ontological argument, that an atheist can conceive of everything we experience occurring without purpose and design, yet acting in an underlying organised structure doesn't make it true that this is even possible? Similarly someone could conceive of an infinite past without need of a Primary cause or unmoved mover, but this concept doesn't make it necessarily true or even possible in reality?
The Ontological Argument can’t work because God’s Omni attribute of Omniscience clashes with God’s Free Will. And God’s Omni attribute of Omnibenevolence clashes with his choice to create a Hell and the People who would go there.
Just out of curiosity, how does omniscience clash with free will?
@@jaidengabriel1675 If God is Omniscient, then He has always known what He will do. Because of that He can never do different or other than what He always knew He would do.
So for example, God always knew that He would create this World and because of that He could not refrain and not create this World.
Had God not created this World, then God would have been wrong in His knowledge that He would create this World.
Therefore, God cannot have Freedom of the Will if He is Omniscient.
Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Revelation 22
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him
*_Why is no one sitting in the Throne Of God? It only has water flowing from it._*
DEBATE JAY DYER!!
This convo was interesting and that one would be too.
@@SilverRaysBeauty44 I mean Trent Horn debated Jay, Erick Ybarra debated Jay, looks like Gavin is the only one who’s too scared to debate Jay because he knows he’ll get destroyed.
@ if he’s so immature it should be a really easy debate. That false piety is such a thinly-veiled guise for cowardice, no one is buying that.
@ whether you’re mature or immature has nothing to do with the argument.
@@zalmoxis3707 newsflash - winning debates has no influence on what's true or not.
GOD vs GAVIN: Jesus Christ "eat my flesh and drink my blood". Gavin = "eat bread and drink wine". Still refusing to play snap Gavin!
1. This has nothing to do with the debate.
2. Why aren’t you supporting a Christian in this context?
3. John 6 is not, and never will be about the Lord’s supper and or Eucharist.
@@justchilling704 The Bread of Life is the Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper. Even Gavin has got that much right. What substance did Jesus Christ instruct the Bread of Life is in the Bread of Life Discourse? a) bread and wine (Gavin/Protestant) b) Jesus' living flesh and blood (Catholic and Orthodox)
@Chris-j1y4x Reread my reply.
Language used to throw off those whom Christ did not want to reveal the truth to. Not plain literalness. Christ is the door, there is no door to walk through. Christ is living water. There is no physical spring to sip from. They are analogous of being in Christ, of having that connection through the Spirit, of trusting in Him.
@@ethanrichard4950 Jesus Christ's language: "eat my flesh and drink my blood", "for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink". I'll stick with trusting Jesus Christ's instructions on how to identify the Eucharist by Its substance, not 1500's Protestant confusion techniques.
the ontological argument fails hilariously. This is the usual theist nonsense of:
"It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a being-than-which-none-greater-can-be-imagined that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the being-than-which-none-greater-can-be-imagined.)
Therefore, God exists."
So it stars with the baseless claim that God is the "greatest" of all beings that can be imagined. Imagined things don't have to exist. So, no reason to assume that this god exists.
This assumes existence is better than non-existence. No evidence for that at all. It's just a baseless opinion.
I can imagine something greater than their god as soon as they define their god. "Greatest" is simply meaningless, since anyone can always add something.
The only way the theist can get around this is by not defining their god. This is why some christian try to make their god as vague as possible, e.g. "the ground of being". Alas, they can never not describe their god.
To counter your argument, you also take the baseless claim God does not exsist. As you can not prove nor disprove He exsists.
God is defined within the bible. You can read all about if you truly cared
@@budzwithbudz6729don't engage velkyn. He's trolling through all of the Christian channels and mainly tries to convince himself. I've told him more than once that his arguments aren't convincing for anyone who has more than a superficial knowledge about these things.
It's also clear that he obviously doesn't understand the ontological argument. If he was convinced of his atheism, he wouldn't be here.
@@budzwithbudz6729 I have read the bible, and the various books in the bible present many different versions of this god as do the beliefs of christians. Is it omnipotent or not? Is it omniscient or not? Does it change or not? Is it for or against slavery? Does it love children or does it murder them for things they didn't do and had no control over?
@@budzwithbudz6729 Actually, it's easy to show it doesn't exist. Not one event this god supposedly caused can be show to have happened. So we have absence of evidence for your god. We also have evidence of absence since at any time a believer tries to claim noe of these events happened, we can see that no one noticed it and people were doing completely different things.
Show your imaginary friend exists, Bud. I'll be happy to wait.
The debated ended right when it started!
Too much time spent on definitions and the allotted time was split unevenly.
Very sad Gavin! This could have been a great conversation.