It's lamentable that people dismiss these proofs after only a shallow analysis, being convinced that they don't work. This proof is more rigorously formulated in Godël's ontological proof (which was verified by computer to be consistent).
@@conversative Lol no,The axioms Godel used could easily be doubted,One of them was literally this "There are worlds apart from this physical world",Lol how can we accept such an axiom?
@@ayanokojikiyotaka2413 No, that's not one of the axioms. You may be referring to "possible worlds semantics" in modal logic. That's how modal logic is structured. If you don't understand that then you don't understand the system of logic being used by Godël for his proof.
@@conversative Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers. Points relevant to the ontological proof include: 4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.14. Religions are, for the most part, bad-but religion is not. Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: as with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. It is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof - because it rests on five axioms, some of which are considered questionable. A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically. Many philosophers have called the axioms into question. The first layer of criticism is simply that there are no arguments presented that give reasons why the axioms are true. A second layer is that these particular axioms lead to unwelcome conclusions. This line of thought was argued by Jordan Howard Sobel,showing that if the axioms are accepted, they lead to a "modal collapse" where every statement that is true is necessarily true, i.e. the sets of necessary, of contingent, and of possible truths all coincide (provided there are accessible worlds at all).[According to Robert Koons, Sobel suggested in a 2005 conference paper that Gödel might have welcomed modal collapse. There are suggested amendments to the proof, presented by ,but argued to be refutable by Anderson and Michael Gettings.Sobel's proof of modal collapse has been questioned by Koons,but a counter-defence by Sobel has been given. Gödel's proof has also been questioned by Graham Oppy,asking whether many other almost-gods would also be "proven" through Gödel's axioms. This counter-argument has been questioned by Gettings,who agrees that the axioms might be questioned, but disagrees that Oppy's particular counter-example can be shown from Gödel's axioms. I found this on Wikipedia If the axioms are doubted it's not much of a proof.
6:00 You just gave the BEST refutation against "fake it till you make it" that I've ever encountered anywhere. "Don't do that. Don't live your life pretending like you know what's going on, and hoping that no one is gonna stare at you or notice you or notice that you are faking it. Don't fake it. That's no way to live your life, it will eat you up inside and you'll die alone!" Yup, extending from this line of thinking, we can derive reasons for these other phenomenon : - impostor syndrome - secretly depressed - anomie - shallowness + the secret feeling that nobody empathises with you - trust issues, can't open up and show any vulnerability to anyone - would rather be right than correct -
I thought that was the funniest part of the video. I don’t know if you’re right or not. But what does it matter? Unlike you i didn’t come here to diagnose ppl. He’s just trying to encourage his students. He’s a good dude, and funny too. “And you’ll die alone” LOL
What a time to be alive, when philosophy is so accessible. Kudos. I'm re-reading Descartes' ontological argument, years after being introduced. I feel like there's more to it than meets the eye
I like the Kant response to point 2. I'm not quite sure if this is the same refutation, but it seems as though there's question begging going on. "Existence is something that is a fundamental nature of God, therefore God exists." That's using the assumption that a perfect being, call it God or whatever, to prove the very existence of that thing. I could just as easily say, "A perfect staff that, when held, gives me all the knowledge, power, and wisdom of a God would have as an essential element of it, existence, therefore existence is part of this staff's essence, therefore the staff exists." Further it appears to me that the triangle proof doesn't actually prove the existence of triangles, it merely proves, IF triangles exist, the would have three angles. Which seems similar to the flaw in the God proof: If God exists, then God would have as part of its essence, existence; i.e., if God exists, then it follows that God exists.
@kiroshakir7935 I don't think any of that addresses my point. It's still begging the question. It's assuming the existence of God to prove the existence of God. Or in a minor form, using the definition of God to prove a characteristic of God. In either case, the proof fails due to question begging.
@kiroshakir7935 Descartes was trying to prove the existence of God, right? That was the goal of the proof: show the existence of God. Effectively your argument is that he proved the existence of the idea of God, which is... fine, but doesn't prove anything. I can prove the existence of the idea of Unicorns, werewolves, and vampires by the same means. It no more proves their existence than the existence of God, though.
@kiroshakir7935 Right, and that begs the question. I'm going to show God exists. The idea of God requires existence (an assumption that God exists). Thus God just exist. That's literally begging the question. I know of a rod of all powerful knowledge and ability. This rod is so powerful that the holder of the rod knows all things and is capable of doing all things. The idea of such a rod requires its existence. Therefore the rod exists. The same flaw is present in that argument.
@kiroshakir7935 it doesn't need to be infinitely great, it just needs existence as part of its identity. The Descartes proof is that God has existence as an identity attribute. It doesn't rely on God having all of the perfect attributes. Instead it's that existence is one of the many attributes God is defined by. I define the rod of all knowing and ability as also including existence as one of its properties, therefore it exists. By simply saying, "X has existence as one of its essential properties, therefore X necessarily exists," there's question begging going on, because you're assuming a fundamental property of a thing to demonstrate its existence. If you're going to say, no, that only applies to God and nothing else, you need more than "Because I say so" to explain why. Otherwise the proof can be used to prove the existence of anything by simply adding, "Oh and this thing also has the fundamental property of existing."
I’m just a medical student whose goal is to improve in every aspect so that can reach to wisdom. Idk about detailed philosophy but it is so fascinating that it makes your brain run like a rollercoaster.
Probably it was not his intention, but Descartes proves in an inadvertent act of geniality that god is a creation of the human mind, and not the opposite, exactly like the triangle or any other geometrical idea whatsoever, the mind gave god the attributes or essences he needs to have in order to exist, so we are an entity above god, because we can create him and prove his existence and not the other way around.
His idea is that God created us with the idea of him innately in us. So no, he does not prove that we invented God. In fact, the cosmological proof of his existence implies that we could have never made an idea of him unless he gave it to us.
I'm really enjoying these videos. Just when we moderns think we have everything sussed, along comes this philosopher from four hundred years ago and invites us to reconsider our vision of reality on empirical grounds.
At this point I completely give up on Descartes. Not because he's difficult, but because he's irrational... for a few meditations now he's been completely blowing up his own principles. It's like he borrowed one powerful idea from pre-existing (perhaps Buddhist) thought... misunderstood it... and then continued on in the very human business of assuming he's right about everything he already believes. The 'original stuff' he presents is supremely ill-founded, illogical and self-serving Whilst, the 'good stuff' he presents appears to be entirely unoriginal. The more I learn about him, the less value I see in his work.
While Descartes was a great mathematician - as a philosopher, he was mediocre at best - there are way too many holes and problems with his work - he had great influence and is therefore important to study, but for example, Spinoza, who was only 36 years younger than Descartes, was a far superior philosopher
If one starts with God defined as an objective reality, then concluding that God exists is simply coming back to the original premice. In reality it should be "having all of the perfections is part of the 'idea of God' essense".. Therefore the 'idea of God' exists. Now, having an idea is not proof of existence, otherwise we would all be billionaires.. We can have idea of something that does not necessarily exist, this is called fiction, for example science fiction. Descarte as an idealist philosopher: something necessarily exists simply because I imagined it. I never realized this.
It’s strange that Descartes would use an ontological argument when it had already been refuted heavily, even by St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas criticized it in his Summa Theologica, which contained some of the most famous philosophical arguments for the existence of God. And I believe that Descartes was influenced by Aquinas.
Which would you think is a good argument for existence of god? I’m not being rhetorical even though I think at best we can remain agnostic. Existence demands physical proofs rather than abstract arguments. Unless there is a plane of existence that isn’t physical, that we will never be able to verify. God might as well exists in our mind like mathematics.
@@MugenTJ I think Aquinas’ arguments about the need for a first cause, unmoved mover, and necessary being are the best arguments for the necessary existence of a God. While they do not prove the existence of the Christian God, they show that there needs to be some being beyond our universe which is responsible for the creation.
@@JuanMPalacio as much as circular reasoning can lead to a lot of false beliefs, it seems the universe might popped into existence on its own and will one day disappear again . Which might even be a paradox to our logic because we exist within the existing universe. Nothing prevents the universe from coming into existence by itself. Similarly for god.
@@JuanMPalacio haha. The beauty of belief is it need not be objective or verifiable. If it serves you a personal purpose leading to well being. Indeed the Christian god is very problematic. Modern men can do much better.
1. Nothing is better than complete happiness. 2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. 3. The "better than" relation is transitive. 4. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than complete happiness.
Premise 2 can also easily be shown to be flawed, because Descartes even admitted that you can not have just some perfections but necessarily either all or none of them in his response to the perfect island proof. So either existence is not a perfection or anything that exists must be god itself which is illogical since then no distinction between 2 things could be drawn.
9:39 several times now I've heard you refer to God as "the creature that ..." however the word creature comes from Middle English meaning "something created". So you can see it is the wrong word to refer to someone/something that is identified as the creator. Perhaps "the being that..." would be more fitting? Other than that, you make great videos and you have an extraordinary gift for teaching. I'm thankful the youtube algorithm gods smiled down on me and recommended your very popular video on Russell's Paradox. I've been hooked since.
This is really a proof that the "idea of god" exists rather than the physical being god exists, just like the idea of a triangle exists, but actual triangles don't. I'm really surprised this eluded Descartes after the whole Formal Reality/Objective Reality stuff in in meditation 3.
14:30 But he just said existence is a perfection…contradicting the assertion that we can only have all or none perfections, since we and other things exist.
Like you said, triangles don't exist. The idea of triangles exists. The ontological proof is only what you can figure out about your definition. So, if the thing that Descartes was defining exists then God exists. Premise 1 assumes the existence of God. Premise 1 could be the definition of Descartes' idea of God (if God existed). But, that's like saying "if God exists then God would definitely exist because that's one of God's properties that he necessarily exists. (if He exists)"
Summary God exists and one of the proofs is ontological, what means that God's essence/nature can be compared mathematically as the essence/ nature of a number or geometrical form,like a triangle,for example. Some philosophers say that the ontological proof above is not valid and doesn't work
Well after reading the "thing" should the proof not read more like. 1- Having all of the perfections is part of "MY IDEA" of gods essence 2- blar blar 3- blar blar blar 4- therefore "MY IDEA" of god necessarily exists.
grrr ... again amazing video but again i find Descartes talking in cirlces ... "My proof that God exists is that part of my definition of God is that God is someting that exists".
Well he sidesteps it being that blatant. Most people say "God exists because he is God and God exists" which is plainly circular. Descartes says "God is good, separately anything that is good exists, therefore God exists." Which is still circular but at least it has more than 1 step I guess.
I'm not a religious person, but even I am embarassed at Descartes ontological proof of God, even if I was religious I'd prefer to say that I believe in God because of faith than to say it's because of Descartes argument. It's so dumb that it's almost crazy to believe that this guy is supposed to be one of the most important philosophers in history. Even the greeks had better arguments for their Cosmos. Aristotle would be dissapointed that this guy took over his place in thinking tradition.
A response to gaunilo is pretty obvious in order to draw conclusion point three you must have premise one, so if an island is lacking any perfections it could be lacking other perfctions so it doesn't necessarily have any perfection
3:20 I do remember, but from my side of the glass I do see a two dimensional, three sided polyg... oh wait it's unevenly sided! Sorry for the "troll". I really enjoy your videos so thanks, keep it up!
There are an infinite number of right triangles and an infinite number of non right triangles. Subtract One from the other and you get the same infinity. Divide the two groups and I have no idea a what you get.
Descartes says “God always exist.“ So I think number 2 ought to be “Being ever-present is a perfection.” “Existence is a perfection” sounds odd to me. Do I understand it correctly?
Where do they get this nice god from? Has anyone bothered reading the Bible especially the old testament. God test and tortures people and teaches us that life is suffering. I'm an Atheist by the way but I don't get why Christians think god is nice life is a test of will of sorts you can't get through life just being nice because you are bound to encounter malevolence and tragedy. Also you can use the same logic that Santa exist and technically it does in our imagination.
Does this argument about the nature of triangles rely upon the actual existence of triangles, that triangles are not simply invented but exist independently of man as something to be discovered? On another note, it seems that God if he contains all perfections is incapable of change, since changing would imply becoming less than perfect, or becoming still more perfect than perfect, which doesn't make sense. Although the ability to grow must be taken as a good thing, or a perfection, which entails a contradiction, doesn't it?
"perfections" are subjective. That which is considered "good" varies heavily across time periods and cultures, and is even within one time period and culture determinate based on other characteristics of the person being defined. Women who practice chastity are revered as virtuous by the same cultures which place great emphasis on mens sexual exploits as being a right of passage or proof as to some kind of strength/power. So if the trait of promiscuity is a virtue in one while the opposite is a virtue in another, and God has all perfections, then God must be chaste at the same time as God is sexually voracious. It is impossible for God to have all the perceived perfections of our world, therefore God cannot exist outside of theory if Descartes definition of God is correct. Again, I cannot stress enough, Perfection Is Subjective, so if God has All of the "perfections", than God must be perfect according to Everyones' standards, which tend to be widely varying, if all of human conflict is anything to go off of.
What if "exist" is supplanted to "eternal" or "never ceases to be", will Descartes proof work or rather strengthen the Ontological proof. In that case, to be 'eternal' is it a property exclusive to God or for that matter an essence of God?
I think this proof works perfectly well, unless #1 (God's definition) is false. Descartes never tries to prove it, though, he considers it self-evident for reasons I can't fathom. There's buddhism and polytheism, and while we can find something quasi-divine in both of them (enlightenment, the ruling god), it is not defined the same way universally. The only 'universal' idea is that something supernatural exists that affects reality. And even that is not universal, not in the same way as everyone agrees about triangles if they know about them.
The video on the Chinese Room caught my eye, but I thought I should look at some of Jeffrey's earlier material before watching it. However, given the low level of this discussion on Meditation #5, I'm not terribly encouraged.
@@profjeffreykaplan ohh so you are different Jeffrey Kaplan hahaha sorry my mistake, because one of the authors of this book "The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization" is also Jeffrey Kaplan,i thought you were him :D
again with the rubbish premises! "having all the perfections is part of god's essence". i mean yeah, i like his argument as an argument, it's got a premise, the logic is fine, but you're drawing a long bow if you state without vast investigation that god is perfect. fact of the matter old boy is, You Just Don't Know
![ว้าว!ลุงบีมแบกทองมารับขวัญหลานกันยกบ้าน [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.49 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Osihq1OAs-4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] “อภิสิทธิ์” ครม.อุ๊งอิ๊ง แย่งเก้าอี้กันฝุ่นตลบ “ทักษิณ” บงการเอง Iคนดังนั่งเคลียร์I 21ส.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/a_b-kItw2jY/mqdefault.jpg)
I find it mesmerizing that people as smart as Descartes could convince themselves that they could just _define_ god into existence.
It's lamentable that people dismiss these proofs after only a shallow analysis, being convinced that they don't work. This proof is more rigorously formulated in Godël's ontological proof (which was verified by computer to be consistent).
@@conversative Lol no,The axioms Godel used could easily be doubted,One of them was literally this "There are worlds apart from this physical world",Lol how can we accept such an axiom?
@@conversative It is consistent yeah,If you accept the ridiculous axioms.
@@ayanokojikiyotaka2413 No, that's not one of the axioms.
You may be referring to "possible worlds semantics" in modal logic. That's how modal logic is structured. If you don't understand that then you don't understand the system of logic being used by Godël for his proof.
@@conversative Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers. Points relevant to the ontological proof include:
4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.14. Religions are, for the most part, bad-but religion is not.
Most criticism of Gödel's proof is aimed at its axioms: as with any proof in any logical system, if the axioms the proof depends on are doubted, then the conclusions can be doubted. It is particularly applicable to Gödel's proof - because it rests on five axioms, some of which are considered questionable. A proof does not necessitate that the conclusion be correct, but rather that by accepting the axioms, the conclusion follows logically.
Many philosophers have called the axioms into question. The first layer of criticism is simply that there are no arguments presented that give reasons why the axioms are true. A second layer is that these particular axioms lead to unwelcome conclusions. This line of thought was argued by Jordan Howard Sobel,showing that if the axioms are accepted, they lead to a "modal collapse" where every statement that is true is necessarily true, i.e. the sets of necessary, of contingent, and of possible truths all coincide (provided there are accessible worlds at all).[According to Robert Koons, Sobel suggested in a 2005 conference paper that Gödel might have welcomed modal collapse.
There are suggested amendments to the proof, presented by ,but argued to be refutable by Anderson and Michael Gettings.Sobel's proof of modal collapse has been questioned by Koons,but a counter-defence by Sobel has been given.
Gödel's proof has also been questioned by Graham Oppy,asking whether many other almost-gods would also be "proven" through Gödel's axioms. This counter-argument has been questioned by Gettings,who agrees that the axioms might be questioned, but disagrees that Oppy's particular counter-example can be shown from Gödel's axioms.
I found this on Wikipedia If the axioms are doubted it's not much of a proof.
6:00 You just gave the BEST refutation against "fake it till you make it" that I've ever encountered anywhere.
"Don't do that. Don't live your life pretending like you know what's going on, and hoping that no one is gonna stare at you or notice you or notice that you are faking it. Don't fake it. That's no way to live your life, it will eat you up inside and you'll die alone!"
Yup, extending from this line of thinking, we can derive reasons for these other phenomenon :
- impostor syndrome
- secretly depressed
- anomie
- shallowness + the secret feeling that nobody empathises with you
- trust issues, can't open up and show any vulnerability to anyone
- would rather be right than correct
-
I thought that was the funniest part of the video. I don’t know if you’re right or not. But what does it matter? Unlike you i didn’t come here to diagnose ppl. He’s just trying to encourage his students. He’s a good dude, and funny too. “And you’ll die alone” LOL
Qq
Really loved the “You’ll die alone” bit 😂
@@nadaing "Unlike you, I didn't come here to diagnose people."
I'm trying to figure out where that came from. Who is diagnosing people?
Pretending to know what you don’t know is the basis for all religion.
"It will eat you up inside and you will die alone" ... that went from 0 to 100 real quick lol. very helpful video tho
Mr. Kaplan, you are a great teacher.
What a time to be alive, when philosophy is so accessible. Kudos.
I'm re-reading Descartes' ontological argument, years after being introduced. I feel like there's more to it than meets the eye
I like the Kant response to point 2. I'm not quite sure if this is the same refutation, but it seems as though there's question begging going on. "Existence is something that is a fundamental nature of God, therefore God exists." That's using the assumption that a perfect being, call it God or whatever, to prove the very existence of that thing. I could just as easily say, "A perfect staff that, when held, gives me all the knowledge, power, and wisdom of a God would have as an essential element of it, existence, therefore existence is part of this staff's essence, therefore the staff exists."
Further it appears to me that the triangle proof doesn't actually prove the existence of triangles, it merely proves, IF triangles exist, the would have three angles. Which seems similar to the flaw in the God proof: If God exists, then God would have as part of its essence, existence; i.e., if God exists, then it follows that God exists.
@kiroshakir7935 I don't think any of that addresses my point. It's still begging the question. It's assuming the existence of God to prove the existence of God. Or in a minor form, using the definition of God to prove a characteristic of God. In either case, the proof fails due to question begging.
@kiroshakir7935 Descartes was trying to prove the existence of God, right? That was the goal of the proof: show the existence of God.
Effectively your argument is that he proved the existence of the idea of God, which is... fine, but doesn't prove anything. I can prove the existence of the idea of Unicorns, werewolves, and vampires by the same means. It no more proves their existence than the existence of God, though.
@kiroshakir7935 Right, and that begs the question. I'm going to show God exists. The idea of God requires existence (an assumption that God exists). Thus God just exist. That's literally begging the question.
I know of a rod of all powerful knowledge and ability. This rod is so powerful that the holder of the rod knows all things and is capable of doing all things. The idea of such a rod requires its existence. Therefore the rod exists.
The same flaw is present in that argument.
@kiroshakir7935 it doesn't need to be infinitely great, it just needs existence as part of its identity.
The Descartes proof is that God has existence as an identity attribute. It doesn't rely on God having all of the perfect attributes. Instead it's that existence is one of the many attributes God is defined by. I define the rod of all knowing and ability as also including existence as one of its properties, therefore it exists.
By simply saying, "X has existence as one of its essential properties, therefore X necessarily exists," there's question begging going on, because you're assuming a fundamental property of a thing to demonstrate its existence.
If you're going to say, no, that only applies to God and nothing else, you need more than "Because I say so" to explain why. Otherwise the proof can be used to prove the existence of anything by simply adding, "Oh and this thing also has the fundamental property of existing."
Damn every argument has been deleted you’re a natural talent.😅😂
Man, your videos just saved me from failing in understanding the meditations for an essay I have to write! I'm really grateful for your explanations!
I’m just a medical student whose goal is to improve in every aspect so that can reach to wisdom. Idk about detailed philosophy but it is so fascinating that it makes your brain run like a rollercoaster.
Probably it was not his intention, but Descartes proves in an inadvertent act of geniality that god is a creation of the human mind, and not the opposite, exactly like the triangle or any other geometrical idea whatsoever, the mind gave god the attributes or essences he needs to have in order to exist, so we are an entity above god, because we can create him and prove his existence and not the other way around.
His idea is that God created us with the idea of him innately in us. So no, he does not prove that we invented God. In fact, the cosmological proof of his existence implies that we could have never made an idea of him unless he gave it to us.
These lectures are *brilliant*. Highly informative and highly entertaining. Well done!
I'm really enjoying these videos. Just when we moderns think we have everything sussed, along comes this philosopher from four hundred years ago and invites us to reconsider our vision of reality on empirical grounds.
At this point I completely give up on Descartes. Not because he's difficult, but because he's irrational... for a few meditations now he's been completely blowing up his own principles.
It's like he borrowed one powerful idea from pre-existing (perhaps Buddhist) thought... misunderstood it... and then continued on in the very human business of assuming he's right about everything he already believes.
The 'original stuff' he presents is supremely ill-founded, illogical and self-serving
Whilst, the 'good stuff' he presents appears to be entirely unoriginal.
The more I learn about him, the less value I see in his work.
While Descartes was a great mathematician - as a philosopher, he was mediocre at best - there are way too many holes and problems with his work - he had great influence and is therefore important to study, but for example, Spinoza, who was only 36 years younger than Descartes, was a far superior philosopher
Keep making videos like this! Its very helpful for us that are new to philosophy.
If one starts with God defined as an objective reality, then concluding that God exists is simply coming back to the original premice. In reality it should be "having all of the perfections is part of the 'idea of God' essense".. Therefore the 'idea of God' exists. Now, having an idea is not proof of existence, otherwise we would all be billionaires.. We can have idea of something that does not necessarily exist, this is called fiction, for example science fiction. Descarte as an idealist philosopher: something necessarily exists simply because I imagined it. I never realized this.
It’s strange that Descartes would use an ontological argument when it had already been refuted heavily, even by St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas criticized it in his Summa Theologica, which contained some of the most famous philosophical arguments for the existence of God. And I believe that Descartes was influenced by Aquinas.
Which would you think is a good argument for existence of god? I’m not being rhetorical even though I think at best we can remain agnostic. Existence demands physical proofs rather than abstract arguments. Unless there is a plane of existence that isn’t physical, that we will never be able to verify. God might as well exists in our mind like mathematics.
@@MugenTJ I think Aquinas’ arguments about the need for a first cause, unmoved mover, and necessary being are the best arguments for the necessary existence of a God.
While they do not prove the existence of the Christian God, they show that there needs to be some being beyond our universe which is responsible for the creation.
@@JuanMPalacio as much as circular reasoning can lead to a lot of false beliefs, it seems the universe might popped into existence on its own and will one day disappear again . Which might even be a paradox to our logic because we exist within the existing universe. Nothing prevents the universe from coming into existence by itself. Similarly for god.
@@MugenTJ Thank you. I no longer believe in a God.
@@JuanMPalacio haha. The beauty of belief is it need not be objective or verifiable. If it serves you a personal purpose leading to well being. Indeed the Christian god is very problematic. Modern men can do much better.
1. Nothing is better than complete happiness.
2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
3. The "better than" relation is transitive.
4. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than complete happiness.
Premise 2 can also easily be shown to be flawed, because Descartes even admitted that you can not have just some perfections but necessarily either all or none of them in his response to the perfect island proof. So either existence is not a perfection or anything that exists must be god itself which is illogical since then no distinction between 2 things could be drawn.
Except Descartes never said that
this dude casually writing perfectly in reverse like Da Vinci
HOW??
Hes not writing in reverse, even though it looks like it. He made a video about it.
Look at his shirt and jacket. The buttons are on the wrong side.
Here's the video he made showing how it works
th-cam.com/video/6_d44bla_GA/w-d-xo.html
Okay the methodology is really neat!
The whole video is amazing but the best part was 6:24-40
Truly fascinating way of teaching... Love this ❤❤❤ thanks 🙏🙏
Kudos to Kaplan for teaching Descartes with a straight face.
9:39 several times now I've heard you refer to God as "the creature that ..." however the word creature comes from Middle English meaning "something created". So you can see it is the wrong word to refer to someone/something that is identified as the creator. Perhaps "the being that..." would be more fitting? Other than that, you make great videos and you have an extraordinary gift for teaching. I'm thankful the youtube algorithm gods smiled down on me and recommended your very popular video on Russell's Paradox. I've been hooked since.
This is really a proof that the "idea of god" exists rather than the physical being god exists, just like the idea of a triangle exists, but actual triangles don't. I'm really surprised this eluded Descartes after the whole Formal Reality/Objective Reality stuff in in meditation 3.
14:30
But he just said existence is a perfection…contradicting the assertion that we can only have all or none perfections, since we and other things exist.
Like you said, triangles don't exist. The idea of triangles exists. The ontological proof is only what you can figure out about your definition. So, if the thing that Descartes was defining exists then God exists. Premise 1 assumes the existence of God. Premise 1 could be the definition of Descartes' idea of God (if God existed). But, that's like saying "if God exists then God would definitely exist because that's one of God's properties that he necessarily exists. (if He exists)"
Summary
God exists and one of the proofs is ontological, what means that God's essence/nature can be compared mathematically as the essence/ nature of a number or geometrical form,like a triangle,for example.
Some philosophers say that the ontological proof above is not valid and doesn't work
Well after reading the "thing" should the proof not read more like. 1- Having all of the perfections is part of "MY IDEA" of gods essence 2- blar blar 3- blar blar blar 4- therefore "MY IDEA" of god necessarily exists.
It's an interpretation of Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of God and it's generally rejected exactly because of Gaunilo's objection
grrr ... again amazing video but again i find Descartes talking in cirlces ... "My proof that God exists is that part of my definition of God is that God is someting that exists".
Well he sidesteps it being that blatant. Most people say "God exists because he is God and God exists" which is plainly circular.
Descartes says "God is good, separately anything that is good exists, therefore God exists." Which is still circular but at least it has more than 1 step I guess.
I really enjoy this discourse! Thank you Professor Kaplan^^
he kept it real @6:20 so i gave him a thumbs up for that 👍
Thank you professor
I'm not a religious person, but even I am embarassed at Descartes ontological proof of God, even if I was religious I'd prefer to say that I believe in God because of faith than to say it's because of Descartes argument. It's so dumb that it's almost crazy to believe that this guy is supposed to be one of the most important philosophers in history. Even the greeks had better arguments for their Cosmos. Aristotle would be dissapointed that this guy took over his place in thinking tradition.
I think Gaunilo was not a contemporary of Descartes, but of Anselm who is credited with the onthological argument
I am Consciousness of a God apart from myself and it has these properties 1-4 thus in my mind God exists.
A response to gaunilo is pretty obvious in order to draw conclusion point three you must have premise one, so if an island is lacking any perfections it could be lacking other perfctions so it doesn't necessarily have any perfection
3:20 I do remember, but from my side of the glass I do see a two dimensional, three sided polyg... oh wait it's unevenly sided!
Sorry for the "troll". I really enjoy your videos so thanks, keep it up!
I dont want to die alone. Someone help me
😂
then don't fake it
There are an infinite number of right triangles and an infinite number of non right triangles. Subtract One from the other and you get the same infinity. Divide the two groups and I have no idea a what you get.
Descartes says “God always exist.“ So I think number 2 ought to be “Being ever-present is a perfection.” “Existence is a perfection” sounds odd to me.
Do I understand it correctly?
You’re an amazing teacher.. and you’re also super attractive 😉🙏 thanks
"you will die alone!" lol
Where do they get this nice god from? Has anyone bothered reading the Bible especially the old testament. God test and tortures people and teaches us that life is suffering. I'm an Atheist by the way but I don't get why Christians think god is nice life is a test of will of sorts you can't get through life just being nice because you are bound to encounter malevolence and tragedy. Also you can use the same logic that Santa exist and technically it does in our imagination.
If God exists, why is he hiding?
Does this argument about the nature of triangles rely upon the actual existence of triangles, that triangles are not simply invented but exist independently of man as something to be discovered? On another note, it seems that God if he contains all perfections is incapable of change, since changing would imply becoming less than perfect, or becoming still more perfect than perfect, which doesn't make sense. Although the ability to grow must be taken as a good thing, or a perfection, which entails a contradiction, doesn't it?
i watch these for fun. we exist
I don't understand the existence is a perfection part
"perfections" are subjective. That which is considered "good" varies heavily across time periods and cultures, and is even within one time period and culture determinate based on other characteristics of the person being defined. Women who practice chastity are revered as virtuous by the same cultures which place great emphasis on mens sexual exploits as being a right of passage or proof as to some kind of strength/power. So if the trait of promiscuity is a virtue in one while the opposite is a virtue in another, and God has all perfections, then God must be chaste at the same time as God is sexually voracious. It is impossible for God to have all the perceived perfections of our world, therefore God cannot exist outside of theory if Descartes definition of God is correct. Again, I cannot stress enough, Perfection Is Subjective, so if God has All of the "perfections", than God must be perfect according to Everyones' standards, which tend to be widely varying, if all of human conflict is anything to go off of.
What if "exist" is supplanted to "eternal" or "never ceases to be", will Descartes proof work or rather strengthen the Ontological proof. In that case, to be 'eternal' is it a property exclusive to God or for that matter an essence of God?
Gaunilo era contemporáneo de Anselmo. Greetings!
Few cars are stinky and most aren’t grumpy unless you irritate them and that’s on you.
Great work
6:35 got a bit dark
English is not my native language, but is it right to say "creature" about the christian God? I mean philosophically right? Who had created Him?
Humans.
Comparing God to mathematics like okay DC, people made up math OOPS
12:47 Anselm of Canterbury
I think this proof works perfectly well, unless #1 (God's definition) is false. Descartes never tries to prove it, though, he considers it self-evident for reasons I can't fathom. There's buddhism and polytheism, and while we can find something quasi-divine in both of them (enlightenment, the ruling god), it is not defined the same way universally. The only 'universal' idea is that something supernatural exists that affects reality. And even that is not universal, not in the same way as everyone agrees about triangles if they know about them.
The video on the Chinese Room caught my eye, but I thought I should look at some of Jeffrey's earlier material before watching it. However, given the low level of this discussion on Meditation #5, I'm not terribly encouraged.
God is the perfect island 🏝
Are you one of the contributors of Cultic Milieu?
I have never heard of that. What is “Cultic Milieu”?
@@profjeffreykaplan ohh so you are different Jeffrey Kaplan hahaha sorry my mistake, because one of the authors of this book "The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an Age of Globalization" is also Jeffrey Kaplan,i thought you were him :D
@@bhirawaanoraga4953 Gotcha. No worries. There are several of us Jeffrey Kaplans.
again with the rubbish premises! "having all the perfections is part of god's essence". i mean yeah, i like his argument as an argument, it's got a premise, the logic is fine, but you're drawing a long bow if you state without vast investigation that god is perfect. fact of the matter old boy is, You Just Don't Know
A. Perfection is gods B. essence
A. Perfection is C. existence
C. Existence is gods B. essence
4. God exists
A=B
A=C
B=C
And René Descarte is a drunken fart I drink therefore I am