The Ontological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มิ.ย. 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss different Philosophical theories. In this video they will be debating the Ontological Argument. Is the very concept of God enough to prove His existence. Does it logically follow that a Perfect Being (or that than which nothing greater can exist) must have necessary existence. Watch as our two favorite Philosophers debate and focus on the works of Anselm, Descartes and Kant to determine if the Ontological Argument is sufficient to prove the existence of God.
Check out our book...
Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the Three main arguments for the existence of God. The Ontological Argument, The Teleological Argument and The Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon...
Paperback:
US - www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL
UK - www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada - www.amazon.ca/dp/B088BH5HTL
eBook:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B076GRHTQ2
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B076GRHTQ2
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B076GRHTQ2
This script is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part I" eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QM8QXC
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QM8QXC
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QM8QXC
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QM8QXC
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QM8QXC
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QM8QXC
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'The Philosophy of Religion':
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Check out the Philosophy Vibe merchandise store: philosophy-vibe-store.creator...
0:00 - Introduction
0:28 - Anselm's Ontological Argument
1:51 - Gaunilo's Perfect Island criticism
2:25 - Anselm's response
3:17 - Descartes' Ontological Agument
4:05 - Kant's criticism of the Ontological Argument
6:00 - Aquinas' criticms of the Ontological Argument
#ontologicalargument #existenceofGod #philosophy
![ช้างศึกสู้ต่อไป!! พาเปียโน ดูบอลไทยครั้งแรก ตกรอบแบบโคตรเสียดาย!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4WloIH645Lg/mqdefault.jpg)
![4BANG - NOT LIKE US (REMIX) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HO22cYkha1s/mqdefault.jpg)
Does God Exist A Philosophical Inquiry, Available Worldwide on Amazon
Paperback: www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL
eBook...
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B076GRHTQ2
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B076GRHTQ2
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B076GRHTQ2
I should pay you guys my tuition money since I learn more here than in college itself!
😂
Prove it ... By sending them your money 💰........ .. if you do it... Then it proves your telling the Truth .....
If you don't.... Then it proves your a liar .
😉
It's all bologna!
@@rogerchavez9824 I should, but I'm not going to since there's no need for me to do so.
The problem that i ve noticed with the ontological argument is determining whats necessary and whats contingent. So an island is a mass of land surrounded by water and a triangle is geometric shape that has 3 sides. So if u remove the water, no island so its contingent but if u remove 1 side of the triangle u get a straight line or if u add 1 side u get a quadralateral. So isnt this base on perception which translate to subjectivity.
This argument always cracks me up with its cheekiness.
My professor needs ur lectures more than me
😂
Thank you guys so much. I’m cramming a philosophy paper right now and this is EXACTLY what I needed
You're welcome. Best of luck in the paper.
The ontological argument is just wordplay
I devoted my thesis to Kant's critique of the three (deemed) possible types of arguments for the existence of God, and I have to say you present this very well. I fancy how you use his actual examples (e.g. the triangle).
Thank you, glad you liked it :)
Have you run across Hartshorne's revision of Anselm?
concise and well thought out dialogue. loved it!
Posthuman thank you very much glad you enjoyed it.
Best and most underrated channel!! Thank you❤️
Thank you, glad you like our content.
Amazing debate!!! Both logical points being made! Is this debate going to continue, or was that the end?
Thank you! And yes there's another video planned on Norman Malcolm's version of the Ontological argument.
I've always watch your videos thanks for all🔥
I REALLY NEEDED THIS FOR AN EXAMINATION
THANK YOU 😊
You're welcome, best of luck in the exam.
Thank you so much guys.. This really helped a lot as I'm preparing for my exams
You're welcome, glad it helped. Best of luck in your exams.
Can you guys discuss the nomological argument. I'm really enjoying this channel thanks much.
That's exactly what I needed
Great explanation! I love your videos!
:)
It is generally accepted that the ontological argument does not beg the question. All arguments begin with presuppositions whether stated or implied.
No, it is definitely begging the question. The very phrase "God is a necessary being" implies that God exists, in order for X to have Y property X must exist first. So, the correct way to introduce definition is to say "If God exists then..." and provide a definition. So, Ontological argument first assumes God exists, then applies a predicate of necessary existence upon God (which is wrong) and then we have a conclusion: God must exist to be God, forgetting that to be implies existence first and properties next. So, if God does not exist then God does not have properties like necessary existence, therefore no contradiction. It is all about defining God into existence, the worst argument.
@@dmitriy4708 This is a much better way of saying what I was going to say, and that's that the ontological argument just defines God as existing. God exists because existing is the greatest and God is the greatest thing so he exists.
Bought the book…. Best thing I did.. thanks for the vibes… they are my daily snacks for thoughts…
Thank you for purchasing the book! And so glad you are enjoying our content :)
Thank you so much for this! I was wondering if I am able to use this as an example in my philosophy class? I am doing a presentation! Cheers
Yes absolutely, if you want more information for citations you can email philosophyvibe@gmail.com
Glad you are finding the content useful.
Here is a philosophical argument which supports the Ontological Argument of God
1) Existence has always existed - therefore including forever in the past
2) Existence has always been dynamic, ever changing states from one to another.
3) This supports real existence of a past eternal multiverse, or eternal in the past cyclic model of a single universe.
4) This supports existence of an infinite number of universes
5) In an infinite number of universes all imagineable plausible states of existence will have existed
6) The concept of a God, as a supreme eternal being - ruler of all worlds, is plausible
7) Given an infinite multiverse, God must exist
This, I opine, commits the fallacy of circularity by dependency, i.e., begging the question. The third premise is derived from the first and second premises. The same can be said for the fourth premise.
Each premise must be obtained independent of the other premises contained herein. Therefore, I humbly submit that your argument is circular and therefore of no use to philosophically inclined students or professors or any other human possessing the virtue of inquisitiveness, curiosity and logical acumen.
@@rushillakdawala4402What load of crap is your comment? He is using linear reasoning dude, and it's totally valid. An argument's structure doesn't necessarily have to be fully committed to the rules you learnt at school you braindead sheeple.
What matters is that it is sound and valid and doesn't violate any of the fundamentals laws picked by our most basic human intuition.
@@rushillakdawala4402 p2 isn't derived from p1 and p1 isn't derived from p2. These two premises are independant of one another. You can accept the past is infinite but that the universe isn't changing or that the universe is changing but has a finite past (temporal finitism). This means that no premise is equivalent to the conclusion. P5 and p6 aren't derived from prior premises. One can accept an infinite past and reject God's possibility, or accept a changing universe and reject that all possible states have been actualized at some point.
You should give reasons to believe the truth of the premises.
The concept of God as a supreme eternal ruler of all worlds is not plausible. Plus, this God would have to rule over everything in every universe so their could never be enough universes for that to happen. And there’s no reason to think an infinite multiverse exists.
Schopenhauer also argues against existence as essence very clearly in his fourfold root (which I'm currently reading). For me this is very convincing.
Thank you for this
A pleasure.
To me, the ontological argument seems the worst, most childish argument possible. "I can imagine it, therefore it is" coupled with "I define god as existing, therefore he must exist, by definition" I've never understood why anyone over the age of 5 ever accepted it as anything other than garbage. This video really hasn't changed my mind on this at all, but it was a good attempt.
Great videos!
Thank you!
If we rely so heavily on evidence to prove God's existence, how is it when I tell my doctor that my pain level is 6 from a range of 1-10, he believes me? We cannot prove pain exists and yet we so readily believe others experience of it. The example given by Kant concerning predicates is inadequate. We cannot rely on concepts of pencils and pizza because they are pre-existing objects. We cannot classify pizza alongside pain.
I doubt whether the doctor will told that he be cast into eternal hell or will be ostracised from society if he doesn't believe that your pain is 6/10.
i.e. the consequences of him either believing or disbelieving your pain being 6/10 are negligible.
@@lewis72 hell? Wtf are you talking about? OP was talking about the existence of god
Cause pain is not magic. We know pain exists and has different levels. If you tell your doctor something, it's in your interest to tell the truth. If I say to you "I experience god", most likely you had an experience that you cannot explain but you want to attribute to god.
If god really can be experienced, but only a few people can, then it's god's fault, not ours, that we can't experience it.
If everyone could experience god like we experience pain, we wouldn't need ontological arguments (or similar)
Pizza! Pizza!!🍕..
thank you so much for this video. I'm doing a level philosophy, and this really helped with my understanding. Please can you do a video on the cosmological argument?
So happy to hear these videos are helping. We have done a video on the Cosmological Argument, it was one of our early videos so the sound quality isn't as great, but still, hope you will find it useful: th-cam.com/video/gqN87vzauRM/w-d-xo.html
thank you!!!
Amazing video, helped me out a lot!
Would be great if you could add subtitles to the video. It worked all right with the auto-generated but "a posteriori" was translated to "... so it is a pasta we all right". Which I would take it not correct haha
Glad we could help. Thanks for the recommendation on subtitles we will look into this.
Thank you so much! you saved my grade.
Glad we could help. Good luck in the philosophy course.
"I'm thinking of a triangle that has three sides...." - speaker in video
Video circles the vertices.
-Doh!
How can something's existence be dependant on what one can or can not imagine ? Furthermore, no two people will imagine that same limit of greatness.
*How can something’s existence be dependent on what one can or can not imagine?*
Anselm does not make this argument. Anselm argues that trying to conceive a _greatest conceivable being_ (GCB) that only exists in the mind is logically incoherent, as he explains in the _Proslogium_ chap. 3:
_[I]f that than which no greater can be conceived can be conceived not to exist; it follows that that than which no greater can be conceived is not that than which no greater can be conceived.... and this brings us to a contradiction._
One might diagram it as a disjunctive syllogism:
1. Either (A) the GCB exists _only_ in our understanding; or (B) the GCB exists _both_ in our understanding _and_ in reality.
2. Not (A) (by _reductio ad absurdum)._
1. To exist in the mind and in reality _(in re)_ is greater than to exist in the mind alone.
2. So to _conceive_ a GCB that exists only in the mind is to conceive a GCB that is not a GCB.
3. Therefore, (A) is logically incoherent.
3. Therefore, (B).
Anselm is arguing that any denial of God’s existence is logically self-contradictory.
*Furthermore, no two people will imagine that same limit of greatness.*
Not a problem. The premises are 1) we all have some idea of a Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB). And 2) it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone. Given those two premises then, whatever else our conception of the GCB may be, if it includes “exists only in the mind” it is incoherent. This remains true for any value of GCB.
Another great video! I think the ontological argument was a good attempt at explaining the existence of God, however I think it is to flawed to be considered. Even if the argument was correct, which god do we apply it to? How is it applied to individuals that believe in multiple Gods?
We don't apply it to a God, but the concept of God.
Avontay Williams We don’t "apply it" to God. The argument demonstrates that a greatest conceivable being must exist. To argue the argument is flawed because it doesn’t simultaneously prove Mt. Sinai, the loaves and fishes and the resurrection is a non-sequitur.
The argument, if sound, proves the abrahamic omni-God. This argument is often used in conjuction with other arguments to prove the truth of a specific religion or type of theism.
Christians often argue, from this argument, that this maximally great being can't be a unitarian entity as it should be neccesarly all-loving. However, if it were a unitarian entity it would depend on other beings to be all-loving. This would mean God wouldn't be all-loving in all possible worlds. He therefore must not be unitarian. This, if sound, rules out Islam and Judaism. It doesn't prove God is trinitarian, but it rules out other religions.
I don't think this argument works, but it's a way christians use this argument to support their specific theism/religion.
Cool, I couldn't have explained it, but when I heard this argument, I had the sense that it was only 'proving' a concept. But not knowing how to argue that, I just conceded the point to show we were nowhere further along in establishing a god. Existence is not a predicate of the concept, is very clear. Thanks.
The argument basically goes: “You don’t believe what I you say you believe unless you agree with me”
Greate content
Thank you
There is a flaw in Kant's criticism. He is saying that Existence is not a predicate and the perfection of God doesn't add anything to the existence of God. However, I would say that, God is a necessary being and to be necessary, His existence is must be a pefection.
This was amazingly easy to understand. Is the book written in the same manner? (dumb friendly?)
Thank you for your interest in our books. The "Philosophy of Religion Anthology" is a big collection of all our philosophy of religion scripts, so it is written pretty much in exactly the same manner, maybe edited slightly to give the book a better flow.
The "Does God Exist" book goes into the 3 traditional arguments for the existence of God in slightly more depth than the videos do, so it is a little more complex.
Speak truth to power. They hit you with this to deflect you.
Existence may not be predicate, but necessary existence is. Once your reform the argument, we get over that issue. The only one left is kants other criticism, that we can deny the concept itself.
Hello sir, can i get your pdf for free? I'll be pleased
wait..... @ 4:13 i think Kant is actually proving that god exist with the denial of the triangle theory by descartes.
if existence didnt exist then we can debate that god doesnt exist but since existence exist therefore god exist. am i wrong?
very nice video on a classical topic. The ontological argument was unconvincing when it was put forward almost 1000 years ago and so it remains. I remember hearing it when I was 16 in class and I thought it was just ridiculous; I also remember my philosophy teacher adding that Kant disproved it because he showed that it is one thing to have one hundred thalers in one's pocket, and another thing to *think* you have them... You don't say! I found that even more ridiculous. Besides, the God one arrived at with this kind of reasoning is a far cry from the God of the bible (=angels & miracles).
luckyluckydog123 very well put. Norman Malcolm actually gave a compelling version of the Ontological argument but still didn't go far enough. It's covered in depth in the book we're promoting.
Tip: Kant's critiques don't apply to modern ontological versions of the argument and some would say it doesn't even apply to Anselm's second version of it.
Is the guy with the glasses Edward Snowden?
I think most people misunderstand this argument. The argument isn’t meant to “prove” that God exists (like St. Anslem intended), but rather, it works better by showing that God is logically consistent, thus rising the possibility of his existence.
Why does it need to exist to be perfect? Wouldnt something that doesnt exist be more perfect?
Perfect not as in splendid or superb, but as in something that posses more quantity of reality, if that makes sense. God is absolute perfection because he possess all reality, he is infinity. I exist, but I am less perfect because I don't posses as much reality as God does.
@@facucanale
Utter gibberish.
If god "posses more quantity of reality", then it would be more visible, audible, tangible, odorable (!) and thermally detectible, yet it is none of those.
@@lewis72 Been a couple of month since I studied this in depth, but I think the solution to this problem that Descartes gives is that God is indeed infinite, and so his creation, everything you see is part of him (I might be wrong).
Note that I don't believe this, I am just trying to make Descartes' point.
@@facucanale
Infinite in what aspect ?
"Infinite" on its own is an adjective without a noun.
Replacing "infinite" with a finite value, say, 154, shows that it doesn't really say much:
"God is 154"
@@lewis72 you can't replace infinite with finite values, they don't work the same way. I say infinite as in "no-ending", an everlasting being both in the temporal and physical way.
A question I have is if you combine evidence from the Bible and the existence and resurrection of Jesus, would that not require the ontological argument? Because what gave birth to Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. Should that alone not require the ontological argument?
No. The Ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God in a general sense. It is theologically neutral. However, it does argue for the existence of a single deity so most polytheistic religions would run into some problems with this argument. It applies to the monotheistic religions mainly. Or for Deism.
Test in 1.5 hours. You are saving my life lol
Glad we could help. Good luck in the test.
I’m curious where the different gods of the various religions factor in. As in, with the argument for a perfect island you can imagine, groups of individuals from different religious institutions all have different imagined depictions of their god. Shiva doesn’t look like God who doesn’t look like Buddha who doesn’t look like Allah.
Does imagining the physically characteristics of a god as an image with parameters (the same way I would pick an island with lush green trees, cool weather and no predators above me in the food chain). So if that island example can’t exist because we no nothing can match that conceptualized island then couldn’t the imagined perfect god not exist? I may have misunderstood that point entirely though and I’ll gladly admit that.
Regardless it’s a very good video :)
Does perfection exists?
I cant tell if gentleman on the right is trying to speak god into existence or trying to prove his/its existence lol, trying to decide which is like trying to look left and right at the same time. Very interesting nontheless great job.
I was hoping that this video would clear things up, but I still do not understand the ontological argument - it makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems like circular reasoning. But I'm conflicted because it made sense to Descartes and others, so there must be some logic to it that I just don't see.
The conclusions aren’t as important- it’s an interesting thought experiment but Anselm is question begging and making too many assumptions for the argument to be truly sound. There are better arguments for God’s existence
I would argue that the concept of something is always "greater" as the real thing since concepts are almost always ideal and without flaw.
You should not have any "concepts" in mind when trying to understand the Ontological argument. The Ontological argument argues that God, by definition, IS the greatest CONCIEVABLE being there is. If there was something greater than God, than THAT would be God. In Philosophy, to conceive of something is NOT to imagine it, as we can imagine all sorts of things. Rather, conceive means to POSSIBLY exist in some possible world. And as the argument tries to argue, if it is at least POSSIBLE for God to exist, then it necessarily follows that therefore, God must exist.
@@ProoFzorz Sorry if what i am about to say sound silly but wouldnt this mean that if God exist within the boundaries of any possible Universe he could only do so by being the Universe? Because if the Universe could contain him and his creation it would be greater than God. So either he doesnt exist because we cant conceive a world with God in it or he is the Universe and as such has to exist.
@@f.w.3823 Let me reiterate. When philosophers talk about "possible worlds", they are NOT talking about universes. What philosophers mean by "possible worlds" is that there is a complete description of reality in which certain things are true. How the world OUGHT to be, if you will.
There is a possible world in which we can conceive of a maximumly great being. And by using the modal logic formula, you arrive at the conclusion that a maximumly great being must exist in EVERY possible world.
Now, to answer your question directly, I think there are certain contradictions in terms here. First, it is the Theist's position that God CREATED the universe. By definition, God would have to exist beyond the universe He created. By many philosophers and theologians will argue that at the moment of creation, God entered into the world He created. After all, He is God and can do that.
@@ProoFzorz Thanks for the clarification^^
So the argument is since there is a possible world in which we can conceive something it needs to exist in every possible world?
What i dont quite understand is why God needs to external. My body creates blood cells within itself without any issues so far after all. Why does the act of creation require the creator to exist beyond it?
@@f.w.3823 "So the argument is since there is a possible world in which we can conceive something it needs to exist in every possible world?"
Not that easy but yes. Only if it is logically coherent. There are plenty of things we can conceive of in many different possible worlds. But no, that does not automatically mean that therefore those things exist. For a maximumly great being though, it appears that there is no possible world in which such a being cannot exist. It's logically coherent in every possible world. And if that's the case, then such a being exists in the actual world.
"hy does the act of creation require the creator to exist beyond it?"
Because, this is true by definition. Philosophers and theologians have always traditionally argued that God is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, etc. In order for God to have created a universe with time, space, matter, etc, God by definition would have to be timeless, spaceless, etc.
Something exists, therefore nothingness has never been. After all, if there were nothing then there could not even exist possibilities since possibilities are something. So if ever there were nothingness, then there would still be nothing now since it would be by definition impossible.
That was a good breakdown of the objection that the extant pencil is not only greater than the concept of the pencil, but also greater than every possible concept of a god.
Yet _the pen is mightier than the sword._
robtbo Correct. For Anselm, existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone:
_Si enim vel in solo intellectu est, potest cogitari esse et in re; quod maius est._ (Proslogium, Chap. 2)
“Anything that exists in the mind can be conceived as existing in reality also; and that [existence in reality] is greater.”
Anything that exists in reality ( _esse in re_ ) is greater than everything that exists only in concept ( _in solo intellectu_ ). Thus an actual pencil would be greater than the greatest possible concept of God, if that concept existed only in the intellect.
You can't know the real pencil without the concept in your mind first.
One cannot experience a physical pencil, without having thought of it beforehand???
@@beingsshepherd Maybe what is meant is that the concept of a pencil came before the actual pencil
@@colourqueen22 I don't suppose that _mark-making_ with a stick did.
@@beingsshepherd I see your point 🤔
@@colourqueen22 The concept might have, but the elements of the concept, wood, lead, hand motion for writing...are all physical reified thing. Conceptualization is an abstract way of thinking about non-abstract things. In a way it's more of a holistic process
Existence may not be a predicate because it does not add to our idea of the nature of a thing. But I think that Necessary Existence is probably a predicate because it does add to our idea of the nature of a thing. Namely that the thing exists by the necessity of its own nature. I also think that Kant's objection about rejecting the existence of the whole concept of a thing fails. Think about it when Kant says that just because I triangle necessarily has three sides does not mean I can't reject the triangle and it's three sides as existing he is failing to take into account that the three sides have the same relationship to the triangle that Existence has to God. So X/triangle/God is defined as a necessarily Y/necessarily three sided/necessarily existing. And to deny that X/triangle/God is Y/three sided/existing is a contradiction. Of course Kant can reject the triangle and it's three sides existence because the concept of a triangle does not entail necessary existence. But the concept of God does entail necessary existence. And I guess I would want to see an argument for why we cannot know what God is. Aquinas was a brilliant man but "Aquinas said so" is still just an appeal to authority. But still a good video.
Fantastic response. Did a particular thinker say this? Where did you get it? Doing a report on the Ontological argument and would like to use this.
@@Ketteringg I think that William Lane Craig agrees with me that necessary existence is a predicate. But I don't have a reference.
@@redbearwarrior4859 Awesome. Thank you.
@@Ketteringg No problem.
Adding the term 'necessary' does not make it so. The concept of a triangle is contingent, one can imagine a world in which the concept does not exist. If this concept exists (as it does), it necessarily has three sides. Yet one can deny the concept without contradiction.
Furthermore, Kant's argument against existence being a predicate still holds. In the end, I think that Anselm's argument amounts to no more than a petitio principii: it assumes what it needs to prove.
Wish Plantinga and the improved versions of this argument came in. While Anselm and Descartes were on to something, the field of logic they were trying to tap into wouldn’t be created for almost a thousand years after the original argument.
Plantinga's version is just begging the question, because possibility for a necessary being equals existence by definition. So, It is possible for a MGB to exist = MGB exists in all possible worlds including the real world. All the other premises are just explanations of definitions in the first one.
P.S. Interestingly enough, there is a different argument with the similar structure. P1: It is possible that MGB does not exist... Therefore MGB does not exist. Modal ontological argument is designed to trick people by confusing the definition of possible used for contingent beings (possible= exists in some possible worlds and does not exist in others) and necessary beings (possible= exist in all possible worlds). And another trick is conflating MGB is a being that exists necessarily with the real definition: MGB is a being which if it exists it exists necessarily.
@@dmitriy9053 This is true only insofar as one has no independent reason to think an MGB is possible. Plantinga acknowledged both the question begging nature and the reverse argument in the nature of necessity. He affirms that it’s a sound argument, yet not persuasive to a nonbeliever. However, the structure of the new argument allows other arguments, like the cosmological argument, to be sound so long as they provide reason to affirm the possibility of God’s existence, thus allowing all arguments for the existence of God to be constructed on weaker premises
@@whatsinaname691 Other arguments do not tell us anything about necessity, so I don't think we can use them in support of this argument. We need independent proof of exactly maximally great being, not maximally excellent being. Otherwise it would be an equivocation fallacy. Like the possibility of some type of God is used to affirm the possibility of necessary God, therefore God exists... It does not work.
@@whatsinaname691 If you are not a platonist, moral realist etc. you can simply reject that anything necessarily exist, making the whole modal logic obsolete.
@@dmitriy9053 I think Kripke firmly dismantled the idea that we can ever be rid of necessity again
The voice tho😂😂
I have no thought of someone who doesnt believe in God. Therefore everyone knows God exsists.
Men have seriously argued about this for centuries?! Unreal...
It’s poetic but only a rare few go beyond it.
I'm confused as to how the word "greater" is being used here.
A mountain has greater mass than god.
The Sun has greater light & heat output than god.
Thunder has greater sound than god.
My GP has greater healing capability than god.
My car has a greater ability to get me to work on time than god.
A pint of water has a greater ability to quench my thirst than god.
I'm not really sure what property or characteristic god is supposed to have that's greater than anything else.
“An island is only great relative to other islands, it’s not the greatest thing ever.” I think this answers your question. God as the “greatest possible being” is the very grounds of existence, the foundation stone (as an analogy) for all goodness. He isn’t a good, he is GOOD. All reference to the goodness of entities comes from Him. That’s what we mean by “greatest”
@@kennethdobbs1803
That doesn't answer my question at all.
"Good" has nothing to do with god.
The Christian god allows slavery. Is that good ?
We know better than your hypothetical god character.
Lewis72 so you assume that if an argument proves the existence of God, that makes it the Christian God? Interesting.
@@kennethdobbs1803
I've yet to hear an argument for the existence of any god, so your point is mute.
Which god are you on about then ?
Clearly not the Christian one. Maybe the Islamic one ? The Judao one ?
Or perhaps a brandless, generic one ?
Lewis72 you haven’t disproved the ontological argument. The greatest being is a necessary being, that’s what we mean by greatest. It is the reality which all other reality is dependent upon to exist.
It is a possible that in the far and distant future a sufficiently advanced civilization discovered the true nature of the universe and traveled back in time to create the universe. No god required.
I think Anselm and Aquinas have something right... I think 'the perfect pizza' does not exist b/c what makes a pizza 'perfect' is not objective. I think Anselm is right if we concede certain classical values about the nature of perfection / the nature of a perfect being.... But especially with morality, if we believe there are no moral absolutes (a naturalist, a nihilist, a relativist) that perfect characteristics are like pizza toppings, then we might assert that it is inconceivable to think about a maximally great being.
Here as well you don't mention all versions of this argument. The best version is Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument involving possible worlds. This has been noted as the "victorious" ontological argument. It doesn’t assume that existence is a property or perfection as Kant claimed, but rather that NECESSARY existence is a perfection or great-making property. Do you see the difference? To be NECESSARILY existent is greater than to exist contingently. Something that is contingent just happens to exist and doesn’t have to exist. Its existence is plausibly dependent upon other causal factors outside itself; whereas something that exists necessarily can be a self-existent being - a being that doesn’t depend upon anything else for its existence. It seems that necessity is a great-making property that a maximally great being would have to have. But you could also drop the notion of maximal greatness and just talk about a being which is metaphysically necessary. So really nothing in the argument depends upon analyzing this as a great-making property. The question would simply be: is this a coherent concept?
This is a good video showing how Plantinga's modal ontological argument works: th-cam.com/video/tdAeNQmftzg/w-d-xo.html
Even if I give this argument the benefit of the doubt, it can still prove the worst most evil possible being also exist or else it wouldn’t be the worse possible being ever. Think about it, wouldn’t it be worse for this being to exist then to not exist? And this being must have the power to bring about our worst lives ever conceivable or it wouldn’t be the worst possible being ever. So now both beings equal in maximal power exist. So how does this work?
Evil is a privation of good. It is not a quality that one possesses in and of itself, it is a lack of the good. The very concept of “maximal evil” is incoherent.
Nathanael Culver
How did you determine evil is the lack of goodness? What if good is simply the lack of evil?
nick nolder Give me your definition of evil.
Nathanael Culver
That’s the problem, I don’t think good and evil are things that inherently exist within the fabrication of the universe, I think they are both most likely human constructs, so there really are no good definitions of good and evil since both terms are subjective
@@nicknolder7042 Human constructs? :| So Hitler and nazis murdering 6 million jews was nothing more then "something not in accordance with some human constructs"? :|
It's perhaps the worst argument ever put forward in the history of philosophy.
As outlined here, it essentially tries to define God into existence. What does the word "perfect" actually mean? Can anyone describe anything as "perfect"? The perfect island example is a case in point - what would be its perfect size, location, surroundings, climate, surroundings, content, occupants, etc, etc? And bear in mind, you'd have to define each attribute perfectly precisely and not be persuaded that a slight variation in those attributes might be slightly better and therefore more inclined towards perfection. In other words, perfection is an ill-defined concept.
WLC has tried using this argument but replacing the word "perfect" with the phrase "maximally great" - another equally meaningless phrase. If god is both unique, alone and unitary, then He is both the greatest and the worst of and at anything. Such descriptions become meaningless in a sphere where there is nothing to which you can compare God.
Imagine something that exists that really annoys you.
Nothing is more annoying than my mother-in-law, I can assure you.
If she exists, then she is more annoying than if she doesn't exist.
Therefore she exists, sadly.
1) If something cannot exist in some possible world, it may or may not exist in the actual world.
2) If something may or may not exist in the actual world, we require evidence to determine if it _in fact_ exists in the actual world.
3) There is a possible world where god/MGB cannot exist (one where all innocent people are tortured, for instance).
C) We require evidence to determine if a god/MGB _in fact_ exists in the actual world.
Not existing thing can´t has
properties. This is stupid parody of ontological argument. and yes, existence is not predicate,but necessary existence yes, so this video doesn´t debunk ontological argument for the existence of God.
+Lukáš Craig
*Not existing thing can´t has properties.*
Okay. Point out where I said something that doesn't exist has properties. Unless this is a response to the video and no my formulation of the ontological uncertainty of god.
Incidentally, your statement may not be _precisely_ correct. In this case, we are trying to consider _possible_ things, not things that in fact exist. When considering this, you can attach any properties you like to the proposed thing. For instance I can propose a time-travelling car, and describe the properties of the proposed car (shape, color, ability to time travel, flux capacitor, etc). Does that car have those properties? Sort of. The conceptual thing that is under consideration conceptually has those properties, at which point we can try to work out if any of the properties contradict other properties (which they would for a married bachelor but don't for the car) or if there is in reality such a thing (there isn't). When discussing questions like this, proposing that something may exist is a matter of proposing something that is not described as having properties that contradict other properties, meaning that it is a logically possible thing, not that it in fact exists.
*so this video doesn´t debunk ontological argument for the existence of God.*
I didn't say any such thing. Was this supposed to be just a generic response and not a reply to my comment?
I'd dispute (3), because we don't know whether or not the existence of that kind of world is possible.
I'll admit that it's conceptually possible (it isn't apparently self-contradictory), but if God is real then such a world isn't actually possible.
*"Not existing thing can´t has properties."*
then explain the term _impossible existence._
KEvron
By _exists in the actual world,_ do you mean: something that is phenomenal to us?
There is nothing greater than the proton .
God fullness determines existence.
notes edunga da notes edunga arumai makale....
You've convinced me, zeus does exist.
Exactly 😊
The whole argument is a sleight of hand.
If this universe was purposely "designed" for us, it would be the ultimate Rube Goldberg machine, bar none!
For those living under a rock: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine
The existence of God is not the problem for me. It's fine to believe.
It's the function of the religion which is the issue. It appears to me they exist to exploit God, as capitalism teaches us to exploit all things.
So do the faith leaders exploit the most high.
job well done,,, however kants seems to have reduced God to finite beings therefore losing the concept brought by anselm... thus he commited a strong strawmen fallacy there and still, the argument stands since it only applies to God (infinite)
The whole point of Kants argument was to highlight the inherent problem in anslem’s concept of God. That being, Existence isn’t something that can be derived through conception alone, only through evidence and proof can existence be shown. Regardless of the supposed singular infinite nature of God. Just as you can deny the existence of a triangle and it’s three sides altogether, you can deny the existence of a singular God and it’s infinite nature altogether. A concept is simply that, a concept. It has no bearing on objective reality.
I agree to disagree :)
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (definition).
This is Anselms definition of God and its something that atheists and deists can both agree.
2. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist solely in the mind (premise).
This premise is again something that both atheists and deists can agree on.
3). If God ONLY existed in the mind then, Anselm argues, we CAN imagine a being greater than God which is impossible (see 1.)
but........................hang on a minute.
Either we CAN conceive of a being greater than God or we can't, Anselm's argument wants it both ways.
This is where this argument fails.
Anselm wants us to accept that we cannot imagine anything greater than God but then suggests that if God only existed in the mind, we could do so but we would conclude that the primary definition is true (that a being greater than God is unimaginable).
An inability to imagine a being greater than God remains just that - an inability to imagine a being greater than God.
Its no proof of the existence of God.
If God did exist he would (obviously) be greater than an imagined God but Anselm's Ontological Argument is no proof of it.
*This is where this argument fails.*
I think you’ve misconstrued the thrust of Anselm’s argument. This is precisely where it succeeds.
*Either we CAN conceive of a being greater than God or we can’t, Anselm’s argument wants it both ways.*
No. That you _can’t_ have it both ways is precisely Anselm’s point. If we grant the premises (as you have) then any attempt to conceive a _greatest conceivable being_ that does not exist in reality is an attempt to conceive a greatest conceivable being that is not the greatest conceivable being. It is a logical contradiction. Anselm explains it this way in _Proslogium_ Chapter 3:
_[I]f that than which no greater can be conceived can be conceived not to exist; it follows that that than which no greater can be conceived is not that than which no greater can be conceived.... and this brings us to a contradiction._
We can place Anselm’s argument into a disjunctive syllogism, like this:
1. Either (A) the GCB exists _only_ in our understanding; or (B) the GCB exists _both_ in our understanding _and_ in reality.
2. Not (A) (by _reductio ad absurdum)._
1. To exist in the mind and in reality is greater than to exist in the mind alone.
2. So to _conceive_ a GCB that exists only in the mind is to conceive a GCB that is not a GCB.
3. Therefore, (A) is logically incoherent.
3. Therefore, (B).
Anselm’s point here is that, granted the definition and the premise, it follows logically and necessary that any denial of the GCB’s existence is incoherent. But that leaves us with only one option: the GCB exists both in the mind and in reality. Once you’ve granted the premises, the conclusion is inescapable.
My argument is this:
1) People don't usually talk or think about things that don't exist
2) When they do talk or think about things that don't exist (such as a movie character or a fantastical superhero) these concepts are fueled by a temporal cause (such as a person's own imagination or a movie/book etc) -a cause that is NOT generalized in all mankind and will soon die out -so people will soon stop talking and thinking about it.
3) Therefore, if God didn't exist, people wouldn't be talking or thinking about the concept of God so much, since the beggining of mankind and throughout ages and civilizations -the cause of their thinking would be temporal and would soon die out.
2) But people HAVE been talking and thinking about God VERY much since the beggining of mankind and throughout ages and civilizations, so the cause of their thinking MUST not be temporal, but eternal.
3) Therefore, God exists.
This can be easily debunked
First of all fictional characters have nothing to do with explaining the entire universe and our own existance so it makes sense that fictional chatacters arent talked abaut for centurys it is in humam nature to seek knowledge to seek truth and we will keep on trying to understand the world around us untill we cease to exist and god may be an explanation of it all so it makes sense he is in every debate in which participant talk abaut cosmos and simmilar things
These old arguments for the existence of god are just plain embarrassing.
For every house is built by someone; but he that built all things is God. (Hebrews 3:4)
Good news: The same God that sits above us on the Throne, is the same God that is everyone, and he was manifested in the flesh! His name is Jesus and he died for the sins of all so that God may be all in all! Thus all shall fulfill the first and great commandment! Evil will not coexist with good/God forever for it is written that God shall be all in all...Praise God!!!
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Colossians 1:19-20 - All things means all things!!!
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Ephesians 4:6
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Philippians 4:8
We are being made in the image of Jesus! ❤Who (Jesus) shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue ALL things unto himself. (Philippians 3:21) Thus, all shall fulfill the first and great commandment!
You never define what you mean by “great.” What makes something great? And the logical conclusions of a concept don’t have to be real if the concept itself is false, so if the concept of god is false then their would not need to be a god. This argument is an embarrassment for theism. 🤣
The emperor has no clothes: the almighty God CANNOT EXIST here now for a logical reason. The reason is that He would know HIS OWN FUTURE too, "embedded" in the general future and would thus be OBLIGED to make that future true. This is not really a problem for important actions that have been decided by Him beforehand. The problem is that He would also BE OBLIGED to take EXACTLY any other IRRELEVANT action of his written future. God cannot accept that. This is why the Son of God exists: He doesn't know the future. This is why God is only a spirit (John 4:24).
This is the worst apologetic argument. The first time I heard this, I laughed out loud. And that's coming from a theist! I'm surprised someone as brilliant as Descartes couldn't see the flaw in the reasoning.
I suggest you have a look at Graham Oppy's article on ontological arguments In SEP: even he, deemed by some as the greatest atheist philosopher of today, agrees the logic of Plantinga's version is sound ;)
@@momergil I mean obviously the logic is *valid* - it follows from common axioms of modal logic. It's just that it seems like atheists have epistemic permission to simply reject the possibility premise, which is why Oppy doesn't think it's a good argument
Everything around us prove His existence.
No
i think it was a stupid arguement
hossein mehdipour ha ha ha
i think the best horse would be a unicorn so it must exist because in order to be the best horse it would have to exist. this is by far the dumbest arguement for anything ive ever heard and i suspect the guy who said it was a troll.
Yeah this argument is just word salas , there are better arguments like fine tuning, kulam , creator need creation
I don't understand how descartes fall into this
One of the stupidest arguments I ever heard.