Anselm's Ontological Argument PROVES the Existence of God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- The Christian thinker Anselm offered one of the most ingenious arguments ever devised for the existence of God--one that even today philosophers struggle to answer and refute. Here I lay out the argument for you to wrestle with yourself.
-
Dinesh D'Souza is an author and filmmaker. A graduate of Dartmouth College, he was a senior domestic policy analyst in the Reagan administration. He also served as a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
He is the author of many bestselling books, including "Illiberal Education," "What's So Great About Christianity," "America: Imagine a World Without Her," "The Roots of Obama's Rage," "Death of a Nation," and "United States of Socialism."
His documentary films "2016: Obama's America," "America," "Hillary's America," "Death of a Nation," and "Trump Card" are among the highest-grossing political documentaries of all time. He and his wife Debbie are also executive producers of the acclaimed feature film "Infidel."
-
Want to connect with Dinesh D'Souza online for more hard-hitting analysis of current events in America? Here’s how:
Facebook: / dsouzadinesh
Twitter: / dineshdsouza
Rumble: rumble.com/din...
Instagram: / dineshjdsouza
Email: www.dineshdsouz...
Mr. D’Sousa, I’ve read your book “what’s so great about Christianity?” It was wonderful! Changed my life - thank you!
It's True . . . God is Real
A lot of atheists and other non-believers say to me "you have not presented us with any evidence, proof or facts to support the existence of God"
My response is: What you seek is not something that one can present to another. This is something that each person has to look for by his/her self. When I accepted Christ into my life I was completely overcome with a sense of pure joy, complete inner peace as well as endless unconditional love. I was so overwhelmed that I cried like a baby and I'm a 57 year old man! Can your science and logic do that? I doubt you can without the aid of illicit drugs and/or alcohol.
It is not up to me or anyone else to present any evidence whatsoever. It is up to the individual to find God for his/her self.
_Jesus said unto him; "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."_ John 14:6 (my fav verse)
_[32] Everyone, then, who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in the heavens. [33] But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens._ Matthew 10:32,33
And your stated response does NOT address the issue raised - namely that you have not presented sufficient credible evidence to convince him or her of your claim.
@@theoskeptomai2535 and you miss his point, that it’s not his responsibility to give you evidence. God is ambiguous on purpose. If you are waiting for someone else to prove God to you, whose job is it to give that to you? Why are you not responsible for finding out on your own? One thing is sure, if you don’t look, you will not find.
@@alphagt62 -Until it can be demonstrated that God exist, because the nature of the claim the reasonable position is to reject the assertion that it exists. Until you or anyone can demonstrate that God exist, you’re speaking about nothing, as if it’s something.
A little known fact, the big bang theory was once discredited for being a Creation Theory. So when they say they believe evolution and science, it's still based on the theory of creation.
@@leskobrandon9872
Either you did not read my post or you missed the part where I said: "What you seek is not something that one can present to another. This is something that each person has to look for by his/her self." Have a nice day and God bless. :-)
If every building has a builder.......than why do we think the earth “evolved”? It too has a creator and the creation speaks to it!
It's a false dichotomy. We have examples of buildings and builders. We have no examples of a god
@@markschiavone8003 yet there is the idea of God in every culture and group of people throughout the entire known history of the human race. It's as if this idea of God began with the origin of humans.
People like to argue "no proof" but I would argue that no one has been able to disprove the idea of God for the entire existence of humans. Even a large percentage of non believers still admit they believe in spirits.
We're in a constant state of evolution at the micro level. Your naked eye can't see it, but with some tools, you can see it.
@@heidi7151 I refer to that as the world being in a constant state of decay which can be seen even on the micro scale. Given time, what you see as improvements will likely result in extinction.
Slight physical differences in bacteria generations do not describe how they come into existence from nothing.
@@heidi7151 ........most critical thinking people can see changes within a species.....like the finches of Darwin. Even Darwin suggested that variation within the species is NOT an example of evolution......for that to happen you would need to see a “change in kind”......the finches of Darwin remained as birds they did not become a new kind. Henceforth the “missing link”......evolution is a theory and no missing link has been found.
Jesus is the only proof we need.
He wasn't resurrected
Those that have faith do not need proof. For faith is the evidence of things unseen.
You employ 'faith' as an excuse as to why you cannot present any evidence to substantiate your claim.
@@theoskeptomai2535 You're asking for proof from someone who holds that they do not need proof of their faith? Isn't that like demanding wine from someone who claims that they are happy without alcohol in their life?
@@misterlyle. No. I am stating that you are using 'faith' as an excuse for the fact you have no evidence to substantiate your claim. If you had evidence, you would not even mention 'faith'. This is readily apparent because you do not employ 'faith' for any other belief you hold. Not one. You are lying to me and yourself.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Asking questions isn't the same thing as making a claim. Truthsabre7 made a statement that is actually a scriptural reference from the book of Hebrews. I infer from your comments that you believe that all aspects of reality can be studied through a process of gathering evidence.
@@misterlyle. Correct. All reality is observable. That is not to say that all realities have been observed. So yes, every reality has a potential to be examined.
Dinesh, thank you so much! It's fascinating. When you explain things, I get them!
The Bible says the God "put eternity in the heart of men" meaning knowledge of the eternal God, the Bible also says "our hearts are restless until they find rest in you Lord." So if we have restless need for the eternal God, where did it come from? The Bible said God put our knowledge of Him and our need for Him in our hearts. That proves there is a God.
The second quote is attributed to St. Augustine. Do you find in the bible also?
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 am an avid student of St. Thomas Aquinas who was the unparalleled genius of the high scholastic era. However, St. Anselm was so brilliant that it is stunning. Frankly, people who quickly dismiss his ontological argument have not grasped its power and depth.
Additionally, his definition of God as "that then which nothing greater can be conceived" is the gold standard for theology and is also a definition that can produce the transcendental attributes of God.
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.
What a load of bull. You cannot make up your own definition and decide that is what everyone understands the definition to be. The entire argument starts out with a lie
It’s defining God the way judaeo Christianity does, and proving that’s the one true God who does exist. That’s how we teach God. Maximally gracious, just, merciful, loving etc.
The argument can be shown to be flawed in at least two ways: 1) The problem starts when we don't accept the definition of "god" as the most perfect thing that be imagined, and 2) the whole argument about the island brings up the case that this is based on 'special pleading' which we already know is a logical fallacy.
@@revcrussell I think the flaw might be more fundamental. Assuming that God is as a premise.
I can't see the atheist agreeing to that definition of God. If there were no God then how can anyone make an irrefutable claim that of all that exists something must be greatest among them. Definitions of what greatness means in this context will differ.
@Jack 1984
2 Timothy 3:1-5 confirms your comment.
Anselm's sleight of hand works as follows:
1. Define God as the greatest thing that exists IN THOUGHT (i.e. imagination) instead of the more proper definition of "greatest thing that can exist in reality".
2. Claim that because you can imagine something greater than what could actually exist, therefore the thing DOES exist.
“God spoke” therefore He exists!
really??? well then by that logic. aliens are real we have pictures.
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.
Is Thomas Aquinas next?
I’m guessing that would take a little bit longer, lol.
Thomas Aquinas nearly single-handedly intellectually saved Western Civilization and he may do it again.
I am a philosopher. You explain things well and clear philosophically.
Got it! Absolutely perfect!
Dinesh, You Sir are a mountain of a man among rubble. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your incredible drive and exhibit of human potential. I am inspired by your love of freedom and America also . Much love to you Sir 💖🇺🇸
If something exists it by definition was created.The universe exists therefore there is a creator.Seems logical to me.
and it's elephants all the way down. A special pleading remains a special pleading.
So you’re saying a god doesn’t exist because it wasn’t created?
no
@@tc539 please explain
@@karlschuch5684 whats wrong with the argument is that you first HAVE to agree with him that there is a god. already your starting out on a bs statement that their is a god when in reality there isnt one. so that just leaves the believer believing in a god the is make believe and all in his head.
In a scientists journal I came across about 3-4 years ago, I found this article: "Why Scientists are Focused on Plant, Animal Genome". I will quote one paragraph from the article. "You can think of a genome as an instruction book for building a living thing. Its language is a four-letter alphabet, which stand for the four compounds that make up the innards of the DNA molecule. The order of those compounds along the molecule is the code; it creates "words". Those four compounds are the 4 base pairs. Man's DNA has 2 strands and 4 base pairs. 3 base pairs are alike but 1 is different. In the bible, there are 2 testaments and 4 gospels. 3 gospels are alike and 1 is is different. In John 1:1, 14 we are told that the "Word" (King James Bible) is, in fact, Jesus Christ. In Revelation 19:13 it tells us this:
"...and His name is called "The WORD of God"; Jesus Christ. Scientists have proven that God's word is, in fact, the Lord Jesus Christ because it is He who is throughout the entire bible for those with eyes to see.
So beautiful .
Thank you for taking the time to share that . It blessed me .
And isn't it a marvel that a humble spirit without much info . can know Him , also ?
Perfect , indeed !
I always ask atheists “When have you seen an atom/sub-atomic particle?” I’m not anti-scientific, but discussing atomic theory/theories takes a real leap of faith.
What I've told my daughter is think of all the people who passed away believing Pluto was the 9th planet in the solar system. You are right. I too am not anti science and am actually intrigued by it, but it does take a leap of faith to accept scientific theories as the be all, end all. My perspective is with the understanding that science is.a simple way for humans to interpret God's work. We will never fully understand it no matter how intelligent we believe we are.
That's the quandary. Science, nor religion can provide absolute proof/evidence of the origins of the universe and the beginnings of life on Earth. I think what makes religion so appealing is that - unlike science - it provides hope, or a promise of a happy afterlife, a "heaven".
not to mention when you get beyond the subatomic and into quantum
Sure you can see particles. We can measure them, study their behavior, predict their behavior, etc. No leap of faith required. You also can't "see" gravity but discussing the theory of general relativity does not require a leap of faith.
you can see atoms what are you talking about get a electron microscope. you just proved yourself wrong
All those emperors who claimed to be god....and killed those who disagreed......
There is nothing eternal in this world, we see animals die, grandparents die, plants die, stars die and take planets with them, nothing is eternal. Every kingdom falls, empires fall. Where do we get the idea of eternity. God put the concept of eternity in the hearts of men.
you don't need arguments for God when you can get to Know him personally thru the Person of Jesus Christ, our Ambassador to God, God Written into the Play of Life as a Human, Someone who Loves us and Think we are Great, Paul said everyone had been given a general revelation of God, so we are without excuse
Even if you ignore the circular reasoning and the special pleading, you can still disprove the God D'Souza and Anselm believe in simply by imaging a greater God.
That’s the argument... we’re talking about a God that’s so great, every time you imagine/realize His greatness, He’s even greater than that... for eternity. That’s what we believe as Christians.
@@GratiaPrima_ You've misunderstood me. Can you imagine a God who created the idea of the God of the Abrahamic religions and has also created lifeforms greater than humans and spaces greater than our universe? I can, quite easily.
@@EricTerman then wouldn’t that God BE the God of the Abrahamic religions? Which doesn’t exclude Him from being God of any other planets and life forms, in fact Abrahamic religions say He is God of all that exists. Period.
In other words, no God created the God of Abrahamic religions. The God who IS God called Abram to become Abraham.
@@GratiaPrima_ You can assert that as a Christian, but that is not Anselm's argument. The only perimeter in his definition of God is imagining the greatest God. Why not polytheism? Why not any God or Gods you can imagine off the top of your head. If you define God as mother earth or father time or something endlessly abstract it doesn't violate Anselm's argument. Where do you see your specific faith in this ontological argument?
I'm ready for the dogpile here, but I believe it is morally disingenuous to support any of the "proofs" of god. This is especially true because even if the ontological proof was correct (it is not) it would not be proof of an Christian god.
Who else besides Jews and Christians with the same one God of Abraham, Jacob, and Issac speak of a God who is the greatest, greater than you can even think of? Other polytheistic religions have gods who quarrel with each other... humans can do better than that, sometimes or at least imagine it. Islam has Allah who doesn’t love unless you love him and do what he says down to the letter... I can think of a more graceful god than that easily. This is clearly proving God specifically the way Jews and Christians teach Him.
@@GratiaPrima_ 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.
Sounds like Anselm had some doubts about God but believed in spite of the doubts. Which also sounds like myself. The Bible seems to say God exists in reality, not just in my mind. Nature says it as well. After I've argued with myself, I always come to the same conclusion. God does exist in both the imagination AND in reality.
Dear leadr Kim Jong Un claims that HE is god!
But not greater than that which can be conceived, thereby refuting his claim of Godhood status.
He will be disabused of that notion soon enough
@@roberthoughton8136 kickin and screaming the whole way.. yes sir....
the problem with abrahamic religions is that real estate is god
Absolute claptrap.
I ENJOY AND LOVE GOD, IT EXCITES ME TO HEAR OTHERS SHAREING MY GOD. I KNOW GOD OUR CREATOR BECAUSE OF THE LOVE HE HAS SHOWN US BY CREATING US AND ALL WE ARE ABLE TO SHARE.
AND THAT THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB OUR SAVIOR HAS RISEN PROVES THAT HE SHALL BE BACK IN ALL GLORY AND VENGENCE FOR US WHO ARE OPPRESSED AND DESPISED AND ALL THE SAINTS SHALL SING AND WITNESS THE GREATNESS OF OUR GLORY.
HELL AND DAMNATION IS ALSO REAL, AND YOU WANT TO QUESTION THE REALITY OF HEAVEN AND THAT WHICH IS HEAVENLY.
MY FAVOTITE PROVERB IS HAPPY IS HE WHO BELIEVES IN CHRIST OUR SAVIOR , YASHUA / JESUS.
Just because the definition has been agreed upon does not mean it's correct. And while it seems reasonable, it isn't evidence.
I would just bring up the fact that nothing can be made from nothing unless through a higher being. So I ask, who created the universe? Who created the particals to create the universe? When the universe was nothing how did it the first chain of events happen to create everything? Because you cannot take nothing and make something from it unless you are God.
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.
Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher,.
The island of Great Britain is a landmass of finite size, but depending on the level and depth of accuracy used, the measurement of its coastline increases to the point of being infinitely long. The infinite co-exists with the finite where one is dependent upon the other.
If you accept the premise that God is greater in every respect, then you have to accept the logical conclusion that it is greater to exist in both mind and reality. I love that! And I love the Lord to which I serve! Praise Jesus and all you who read this. To both the believers and the nonbelievers may you continue to seek God, because if you really, honestly, and earnestly seek Him He will make Himself known to you. God bless!
The Ontological argument is similar to a circular argument and "I think therefore I AM" is another similar type of argument - some truth is in it but it is not a satisfying resolution to the problem. In my humble opinion, these types of statements or arguments do more to illustrate the limit of human efforts to find or justify the existence of God using reasoning. There is so much we don't know - other dimensions we can't perceive - and we really don't even understand the nature of matter - neither do we really know ourselves. But here is the thing - how, in a mechanical universe, would it be possible for organisms built from dirt and star dust to have the ability to think, reason, and create if there were not a God that gave us that ability, or that shared that gift with us? If the big bang origin theory, and evolution were true, our every action would be predetermined like the falling of a row of dominoes, or running down of a wound-up clock - but that is not what we observe. Three great proofs are actually found in scripture by the way - the first is Jesus who came to show us what God is like, the second is bible prophesy which is 100 percent accurate thus far, and the third is the law of love, the perfect 10 commandment law which shows us how we demonstrate love for God in the first 4, and love for our fellow man in the last 6 commandments
Gregory, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post. I was confused and thought the argument circular as well.
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.
You are misrepresenting the counter argument. You have to prove god exists outside of the mind just like you have to prove a perfect island.
This is the worst argument for a god.
1 more thing. I suggest you take the smug out of your attitude when looking for God.. He has a way of putting things in their proper perspective. He knows the real you.. DO YOU?
PEACE is for those who make it.
# IF THEY ONLY KNEW
@@meomy12wer36 , which god?
@@markschiavone8003 you think its funny? .there is only one. Try to be serious for one minute. Because your life depends on it. I know you may not believe this . But it is true non the less. You wanted proof of His existance i told you how to go about finding that truth. Whats the priblem .
Are you chicken? How bout lame duck . Scared you will find the evidence you seek? Then you really DO have to choose. These are yhe last days my ftiend. He wants no one to go to hell. Which is the place devoid of HIM.hold your hand on the burner to your stove. Think about it. You have a chance today to do the one thing in America That the rest of humanity may never even get to look at . To be free..
If you still not willing to look beyond yourself. You are truly lost. .. Just because you dont believe it. Does not make it untrue. And if by chance you dont make it the monent when you discover that 3 billion souls have been taken and you are left standing there with a stupid look on your face, in that moment you will remember this conversation . And weep.
This relies on a paradoxical argument. Now, a paradoxical argument could still be true, but it can also be false. And there is no way to test it to find out whether it’s true or false. It’s like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. The logical construct was created by the very words used to make the argument. It’s similar to circular reasoning.
In short, this is not a proof of God’s existence but only evidence that he could possibly exist. And that evidence presupposes that the definition of God could in fact be agreed upon...which can be logically argued is not possible. Experience suggests it’s not possible. For instance, I myself cannot fully agree on that definition of God put forth in the supposed proof. I can only agree that that definition only approaches one which might be agreed to by many but certainly not all. And I myself feel it is simply a language construct set forth to block opposing arguments.
If there were to be a logical argument such as this one, wouldn't it be essential to agree on the definition of what you are debating? Otherwise, no logical argument can be made. (I agree however, that their does seem to be something circular in Anselm's argument.)
@@misterlyle. I agree with you. In fact, that’s why I wrote my comment the way that I did. Since the assumption in the proof was that an agreement on a common definition of God was possible, I temporarily suspended that contention until the next paragraph.
Even assuming the definition, the proof is dubious at best...so I pointed that out first. Then I tackled the very definition from my perspective as a witness of its falsehood. I never did any survey to find others who likewise might not agree with the proof’s assumption. I can only speak for myself and my personal opinion on the matter as proof that there is not universal agreement on the definition. And then offered that up as a second reason to dismiss the so called proof and declaring it invalid. I put my opinion last cuz I thought that was the weakest part of the dismissal (perhaps mistakenly).
If you assume that there is a god, and that god is something that nothing else can be greater than, then it must exist in reality as well as mind. If X is greater than everything, part of its greatness is that it really exists. The problem is that there is no god. Just because I can define something doesn't mean it must exist in reality. There is nothing that is greater than anything else. Even the universe has edges. How do we define and measure what is great?
How can we imagine forever? There is nothing eternal, nothing, everything in the world is temporary. God put the concept of eternity in the hearts of man.
Dinesh, I was confused and thought the argument circular as well. It seems as if premises in the argument were like: 1. Things exist 2. There is a hierarchy of things 3. The highest expression of things that exist is God. Then the rest of the argument proceeds. But the sticking point is premise 3 which is assuming God's existence. I believe God is and is the highest expression of that which exists. The thorny part is that the conclusion God exists is assumed in premise 3. I don't see how we get around that. The truth value of the proposition is compromised when one of the premises is assumed. Is my take understandable?
While it is greater for any entity to exist in reality as well as in the mind, those features don’t not constitute a proof in a irrefutable, rigorous way.
This is a “proof” based on a widely agreed upon definition rather than on evidence and as such is rather weak and unsatisfying.
@@ItsMe-lj4el What evidence will you present for THAT claim?
@@theoskeptomai2535 aaaaaaalllll the people who have experienced it for themselves and would say the same thing in the same words. I would. So would the hundreds who were eyewitness to Jesus resurection.
@@GratiaPrima_ Name one individual that was a firsthand eyewitness to this Jesus or the supposed events surrounding him. Only one. And we can discuss it.
@@GratiaPrima_ Well?
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.
Thank you.
Positing that "and it exists in reality" is part of "than can be thought" is predicated on god's existence, so really Anselm is just begging the question.
God exists.
Jesus exists.
I exist.
Therefore, you exist.
What if the entire Universe is all just a figment of my imagination?
I’ve thought that at times
If that is true, then you must also be a figment of your imagination.
The issue with positions like yours is that you are then left with nothing. You cannot gain any knowledge, partial or complete. So the only course of action is to trust the five senses and reason. After all, the very question whether "entire universe if a figment of my imagination" only has meaning if you are using reason to begin with.
Then do a better job of imagining! You’re screwing it all up!
I would suggest that we must be very careful not to distract PM Beaham. We don't want to interrupt the current train of thought.
So God is the greatest being,than which nothing greater can be imagined...yet he rested on the 7th day.
lazy bastad eh?
Lol. Yes! I can conceive a greater being creating the Universe in less than a second. Perfect refutation!
Great explanation! Thanks Dinesh!
He-Man is the most powerful man in the universe. He exists in the mind and outside in books, tv shows and action figures. Since he is the most powerful he must exist in reality as well.
He addressed this argument twice. You’re being willfully obtuse. I hope it’s willful, at any rate.
@@MarquisFacade88 Mark Henry is the world's physically strongest man. Because he may not be strong or great in other aspects , does that mean I am willing Mark Henry into existance? Outside of my mind and into reality?
So the argument is essentially stating the obvious? That of all the things that do exist, one of them is the greatest and that is what we call God?
But even if God did not exist (which he in fact does) it would be true that of all the things that exist, one of them is the greatest thing among them.
I don't see how merely stating that something of all the things exist being the greatest of all those things 'proves' that God exists.
If one agrees that God is the greatest of all things, and one looks around and see’s things, then they are admitting that God exist. I hope that helped 🤞
@@TheRichardsonReport No it didn't.
The idea of proof or irifutable logic is that it should not rely on people already accepting that God is real.
What you just stated is that people just agree to find out what is the greatest of all things then call that God.
What if a search and categorization was done and completed and it would found that the greatest thing was just some component of the whole such as human beings. After all, it is said that there is no more complex thing in the univers than the human brain.
We can agree that no human being past or present is God, but by this criteria we have no choice but to declare the greatest human to be God.
I believe in God, experience God and love God with all my heart. But this logic is weak and relies on people accepting that God exists in order to run with the premise.
As I said, for someone who doesn't yet believe that God exists, it could well turn out that the greatest thing is some minor part of the universe, or you could say it is the universe itself. But neither of those are God. This theory would have to crown one of them to be God though.
@@NR-rv8rz I think you over read my comment. I was simply acknowledging the fact that the presumption of this ideology is “God is the greatest of all things”. You are correct it’s still a choice or acknowledgement from a willing person, not proof. We might call this free will.
If God came down picked up a Semi Truck and threw it into space we would stand in awe, and worship out of fear. Faith is so much better because it involves choice. My faith is increased because God blesses me when I ask him too. He does it in a way that leaves no doubt a higher power was at work. Like a child who burns themselves on a stove, I recognize what has happened because it’s happened before, and in my lucky case many times before. God is good! May you be blessed brother. 🙏🏻
@@TheRichardsonReport
If God blesses you every time you ask then you are very lucky. Most people don't get a direct blessing on every request.
For me it's more about feeling God's love and presence in my life when I make the effort to get to know him. Everything changes and I see the beauty in everything when I feel close to God. This is something atheists can't understand as they never experienced it yet.
@@TheRichardsonReport no he got it right except the believing in a god to start with
Thanks Dinesh
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING 5 WORDS IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT?
All men are created equal
Here is a hint.
It is not the
first 3 words.
Read it again.
All men are created equal
So, it is
A. Created
Or
B. Equal
?
A or B ?
The answer below.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The answer is
A. Created
Here's why?
If we are all created equal, then this means that there is a Creator.
You can't be created if there is no Creator.
Makes sense?
No one is created equal if there is no Creator to create us equal.
There has to be a Creator to have a creation.
But if there is no Creator then there is no creation.
And if there is no creation there is no "equal"
So the word created must be the most significant word of the 5 words.
No one can possibly be equal if there is no Creator to "create" us equal.
And there is no such thing as equality in Evolution.
So, if one believes in Evolution then they do not believe that we were created equal.
So, When someone says "There is no God"
It means that they do not believe we were created equal.
It means that they believe in something other than Creation.
It means that they do not believe in the creation story in the Bible.
It means they do not believe in Adam and Eve.
And if they do not believe in creation, then they can't possibly believe that we are "created" equal.
And if they believe we are not equal then this means that some races must be superior to others. (At least to them)
And if they believe that even one race is superior to others, then which one?
Is it their race?
Is their race the one which is superior?
And what does it mean when someone believes that their race is superior to another's race?
It means that they are a...
Wait for it!
Wait for it!
Wait for it!
A RACIST
By definition.
What has just been outlined here is how you prove that someone is a racist.
So, if one calls you a racist simply ask them if they believe in the existence of God?
If they say "No"
Then they are a racist.
Because they do not believe we were created so they couldn't possibly believe that we are all created equal.
Key word
"created"
No one could possibly be a racist if they believe that we are all created equal.
Only people who believe that a Creator does not exist can be a racist.
The rest of us believe we are created equal.
If you believe that all humans are created equal this proves that you are not a racist because you believe that light skinned people and dark skinned people are equal.
Now its possible one could be struggling with how they treat other races even though they believe a Creator exist and that that Creator created us all equal.
They may be like Thomas Jefferson
who believed we were created equal but strughled daily with the fact theat he owned slaves.
But what is worse?
One who believes that we are not created equal thus thinking they are superior to other races or one who believes we are created equal but not living up to what they believe?
Hmm? Not sure?
I didn’t forget to spank that like button Appreciate y’all Dinesh and Family all day long. Yahoo
fascinating argument
He proved unicorns exist too. I’m happy!!
They did. Like most horned animals, the males had horns. They quickly killed eachother off impailing one another butting heads like ram. The females mated with zebra ancestors, leaving us horses. True story! Or not, doesnt matter.
🙄 the argument isn’t “if you can imagine it, then it exists” you just don’t understand the argument.
@@GratiaPrima_ could be, but if god does exist now which god is he?!? So many variations and are even any of them right, if so, why and which one is it?
Two problems. The "agreed upon" definition of God is one. The second is, just because you say it's better to exist in both the mind, and in reality, doesn't make it so. Look to your heart for proof.
I LOVE THE THOUGHT OF THOUGHT RIDDLE, BRAVO !
GOD BLESS US ALL
Call this Russell's Ontological Argument that PROVES the non-existence of God: "God is the most perfect thing we can imagine. Such a perfect being wouldn't need a proof of existence. Therefore god can't exist because we need to prove his existence."
Hey Mr Dsouza you have been responded by Daniel Haqiqatju on one of your videos. Why don't you debate him on Islam vs Christianity?
Zero + Infinity = One....and One is God and God is everything.
The teleological argument is the strongest argument for God.
"... Even atheists agree on this definition of God..." I'll agree with whatever definition you use. If you said God is the Creator of men who shoots lightning and battles with his evil brother of the underworld, I could name a few God's that also fit that definition.
It's not confusing. Dinesh D'Souza is saying, by my reckoning, God is a product of the imagination, or God exists in fact. Then he goes on to say that it's "greater" to exist in the mind and reality. Therefore, it must exist as fact. It seems like he's defining God into existence, and it's entirely predicated on our ability to imagine it. It is a word game. I can't imagine how many people have existed in all of history, but they did. Lots of things exist outside of our awareness of it. He then says that it's not a word game without explaining how it's not a word game. He then says it's not defining God into existence without explaining how. He then says the same things over again verbatim.
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.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) offers a pragmatic reason for believing in God: even under the assumption that God's existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are so vast as to make betting on theism rational.
An omniscient God would know you are feigning belief to acquire the benefits God presumably can bestow on you.
Your crass hypocrisy wouldn’t do you a bit of good.
Thank you for this wonderful witnessing. Here's my personal testimony: I've been patrolling the Road to Damascus for some decades now. All I've ever seen are a few dust devils and burning bushes. But my faith remains strong. I'm certain that around 3:45PM tomorrow, Jesus will jump down onto the hood of my car.
Get a photo with your phone.
We may agree on that definition of God, but we don't know that's actually the correct definition.
I think St. Anselm would respond by asserting that his definition of God cannot NOT be correct. Or, anything less than a being that "than which nothing greater can be conceived" would not be the Supreme Being.
the one thing you "forget" is that by the same rules of debate which dictatte the shared definition, you MUST apply the same standard to all arguments. the lost island argument is equally valid to anselm's argument. Anselm pulled a classic bait and switch. the question of God existing is the question of whether a sentient individual being exists physically as wel las mentally and just because you can conceive of a sentient being that is "greater than anything" and while it is true that existing in reality as well as conceptually is greater than conceptually alone, that does not necessarily follow that it does exist physically, same as unicorns.
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.
What is greater, that which can be detected or that which is hidden? That which allows suffering, or that which doesn't?
Dinesh, in the Veda ( the oldest scriptures and the most complete knowledge) it gives many definition fore God: 1 the Unborn, 2) Bhagavan ( The One who possess the six qualities to its extreme: beauty, knowledge, fame, strength, wealth and renunciation.) 3) The original being, etc...etc..... >>>>That which no greater can be thought
Much is difficult to understand without God.
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 am a Christian but I don't like this argument. There maybe nothing wrong with the argument from a logical sense but many things are completely logical but still untrue. It is flawless logic to think that if you drop a heavy object and a light object at the same time the heavier object will fall faster but it's not true, they both fall at the same speed and a simple experiment will show this. This was the problem with Greek philosophy in general, it prioritized logic over what actually is and can be proved by experimentation which is why there was no industrial revolution in ancient Greece or Rome. The Ontological argument is completely logically sound but it amounts to clever wordplay and says nothing about what is actually true. Thomas Aquinas's cosmological argument is much better in my opinion.
Good summary!
I admire your education and knowledge But I love Fran . God Bless you always 🙏🏾🙏🏾❤️🇺🇸
If you can think of something possible in the Real World as the greatest thing that can exist, it simply does not follow that *if* it were to exist, that would be greater, so it must exist. Because the question is still, does this possible thing exist? I like my possible empirical existences to be falsifiable. So for me the real question is, what would falsify the apparently empirical assertion that "God Exists"?
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.
God is good. All the time.
Philosophically speaking and given the agreed upon definition, I would add that the attempted refutations failed to address the omniscient nature implied in that definition of God. Any concept of God or "God-ness" presumes sentience. No one would assert that an island posseses a sentience inherent to "island-ness." Not to mention the logical fallacy committed by introducing a qualitative aspect (most beautiful) rather than an essential one. This nullifies the attempted comparative argument.
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 guess the question is how being extant in more than one place is "greater". Addition?
Multiplication... Greater .
@@meomy12wer36 Yeah but existence is not Math.
@@sfmag1 you made the corilation .. not me. I saw an inquisitive mind. And thought. Maybe he does not know that Father God, .is the God of multiplication . Well able to exponentially multiply any number and bring it unto himself..
He laughs at our folly. .especially those who think they have it all figured out.
@@sfmag1 besides that . Its all a big math problem. .numbers . Numbers . Numbers everywhere numbers.
If you add it up , i think it equals. Insufficient mass. Math. .all pure math . Ligic , is math. Math is life eternal. It is true , pure, never lies. - 0
@@meomy12wer36 just talking philosophically, without assumptions. I wouldn't assume what I was trying to prove.
Who created God.
Haven’t you heard, God will not submit to a foolish test nor to an ontological proof of His existence. You either have faith or unbelief. Which do you have?
Here's a problem with the premise that I've always had and maybe you can help me with it: the term "no greater" is a comparative. Rather than proving the existence, the existence is assumed by the comparative rather than deriving the existence on its own, therefore, the expression borrows existence from anything its compared to rather than deriving its own ontologically. Am I off base?
God. Galactic order of democracy
"God is that than which no greater can be thought" does not define any entity. THAT which no greater can be thought is the superlative adjective "greatest". "God is greatest" is not a definition for it does not render the term "God" more definite, distinct, or clear. "God is beyond our greatest thought" is not a fallible statement and therefore, not a candidate for a necessary conclusion based on the rational deduction of sound premises.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
And that cause must be, Spaceles, Timeless, Immaterial, Uncaused, Immensely powerful, and personal.
W L Craig.
The first problem with this "proof" is that it defines God by merely one _property_ of God. God is _more_ than just that which is greater than all things. As this premise is thusly flawed, so to is the rest of the argument.
I have yet to hear any such "proof" of God's existence which does not suffer from similar flaws in their logic.
It seems to me that belief in God is only obtainable on an individual level through a direct connection with God, and generally in ways which cannot be used to convince others. These attempts at "proving" God's existence intellectually, so that everyone will be convinced, are hence doomed to failure.
I think you might be misunderstanding the argument. The greater or lesser is used by St. Anselm in the scholastic sense of the word i.e. the degree to which it resembles its essence. Do keep in mind that this holds true for arguments like the five ways by St. Aquinas as well. Most people tend to not realize that the words in these arguments have a different meaning under the scholastic terminology.
That being said, there is a problem with the ontological argument in that it already presumes that we can know God's essence. St. Thomas Aquinas himself points out this issue, and provides a fixed version in his fourth argument for the existence of God.
In short, to better appreciate these old arguments, one first has to understand what the argument is saying. To do so, one must first grasp the scholastic terminology. The problem today is that everyone wants to use/object to these arguments without having that important background.
If the argument is true, how could it be flawed?
@@13BGunBunny The argument is true in that it is deductively correct. The issue is that it presupposes a vital piece of information that is not shown/demonstrated, but taken for granted i.e., that the essence of God is known. That is the issue.
@@eufrosniad994
The essence of God is known to those that believe. What is the issue?
@@eufrosniad994 I see. Sounds like that very well may be the case. It wasn't mentioned as such in this video, however, which is all I was going on.
Either way, I stand by my statement: belief in God is obtained via direct, personal connection with God; and such belief cannot, therefore, be obtained by any other means, e.g. quasi-logical reasoning. Actual proofs are really only 100% convincing in my own preferred area of study, i.e. mathematics. Attempts to use "logic" outside of this field are inevitably subject to interpretations, opinions, and disagreements.
Define “greater”
_synchronistic mathematics_
👀🐡🌿🌾🌊 cc
m.th-cam.com/video/xBmAKCvWl74/w-d-xo.html
"Greater" means more complex. I use the data from 20 years of creative writing and introspection to illustrate a "greater" reality. I do not find curious people capable of serious examination of my work. People attempt to fit all complex information into established beliefs or models.
"Greater" can mean "first", or "tip" ie. Tip of the arrow.
Many ppl don't realize the word dinosaur is actually the modern term for dragon coined by the late Sir Richard Owen.
You wish Dinesh.
There is also plenty of physical proof, not physical proof of God, but physical proof of events that have happened in the Bible. Plenty of it!
We are gods with amnesia.
Our creators could simple be a more highly advanced lifeform that altered our future with genetics.
But then what created that advanced life form? Another life form? You can go down that path forever
@@Ryan-ze9fz They could simple be naturally created which have existed a million years older. Because they didn't kill themselves out with Old wars about God.
And what created the environment that allowed them to evolve?
@@jrr___7902 Simple genetic mutations that occur in natural evolution.
@@jeremyhale6532 Environments don't have genes. But even so, what created those genetics, or for that matter, nature. There must have been a "first cause", or in other words, God.
I don't think everyone would agree with that definition of god. I dont see how existing in both the mind and reality is greater then existing in just the mind. I don't think everyone would agree on what a maximally great being would be, not even christians do. But ultimately the problem is that a maximum great being doesn't necessarily need to exist.
life created the universe for life to exist, GOD created the universe for life to exist. GOD is beyond comprehension.
There is a third possibility: it exists neither in mind nor in reality.
Do you mean that you never thought of it?
Finally understood it thank you so much.
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.
Therefore, the ace of spades is a god.
In the area the Ace of ♠️ dwells he is great but no other in existence can compare on GREATNESS THAN GOD OR JESUS, GOD IS JESUS AND JESUS IS GOD AND NONE CAN EVER BE IN COMPARISON!
Only when I'm holding...
K♤Q♤J♤10♤
God exists it is true and always has been and we really do not need any philosophical arguments to support such. I do guess for some it is more obvious than for others.
Complete BS
Says who?
@@frankkocsis9417 Why Easton Von Schist of course!
The Cosmological, Teleological and Moral arguments are really good but I have never been impressed with the Ontological argument. It still seems to me like it is saying if you can imagine it, it must be true. I know Dinesh says that is not what he is saying but it seems to. The other three are so much better.
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.
Apparently, Anselm possessed a great and clever mind. But to top it off, it ends up he had a most precious component: a good sense of humor. I'm certain God did appreciate it.
DOES APPRECIATE IT.
oops on me. Thanks for the correction.
@@tamsentempleman1544 TOTALLY COOL MY FRIEND, I DID ENJOY YOUR REPLY AND ONLY CONTRIBUTED 2 CENTS TO YOUR DOLLAR IN OBSERVATION TO YOUR COMMENT ON ANSELM, OF WHOM I NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE THIS TOPIC HERE ON THIS CHANNEL.
TY FOR COOL REPLY.
If God is an abstract concept. Is God an abstraction of thought?
Unicorns are mentioned in the bible 13 times. Can't recall now as have Gave the book away but did look it up and yes it was there.