Given that I’m an agnostic, and generally appreciate Dr. Joe Schmid, the guy behind Majesty of Reason, I appreciate this video by you. And I rarely visit this channel. This just came to my feed. Anselm was badly misrepresented. So bad. He’s done basically what has been called ‘stipulative revision.’ Which is the bad way of doing things analytic philosophers have noticed other analytic philosophers like doing. Like Dr. Schmid.
Was not aware that there was a term for changing the contents of arguments like this. Good to know! Yes, Anselm was done dirty. A few days ago I decided to work out how the misunderstanding of God as concept vs object comes about by misreading the phrasing of the original, and how even granting that issue, there are two additional supporting arguments that complete the argument. One for the reality of maximal reality itself (the highest containing unity), and a negative one for why maximal reality cannot be doubted on grounds of an endless layer of realities agglomerating from lower realities.
its funny how you dont need all these abstract "arguments" for things that actually exist, like matter, language, planets, poetry. i can understand why religions spend so much effort keeping themselves convinced of the indefensible, but why try to convince others?
>things that actually exist like matter, language, planets, poetry >matter Doesn't exist >language No linguist seems to know what "it" is >planets Literally as real as inches, which aren't. >poetry Nobody knows what it is, so it isn't. Literally all of these things are, matter and language above all, are abstractions which you project as real because you confirm your bias in the definition you make up. These are actually weaker concepts, much less clear and stable, than the concept of God as maximal reality.
You would need such "abstract arguments" if you wanted to have a priori knowledge of the existence of planets poetry or whatever. People don't need that because the only reason they believe it is on posterior grounds anyway. And that obviously isn't an option for God.
You cannot define things into existence. Greatest is Ill defined. And if such a being could be determined to be the objectively most great, It’s very likely such a being simply does not exist. This is nothing but sophistry
>You cannot define things into existence. You couldn't define existence objectively, yet here you are appealing to it as if you saying words makes existence anything to measure by. >Greatest is Ill defined. That you fail to understand it does not mean it isn't clear. As pointed out, greatness/perfection/reality are categories intelligible in the continuum of Being which we find in the Platonic model of participation. >It’s very likely such a being simply does not exist. As pointed out in this long video, "plausible", "probable", and in your case, "likely", are illegitimate concepts. Plausibility is subjective to the assumption of what you know and believe, and has nothing to do with reality itself. Probable has to do with the proper definition of a limit and that which is in it, like the chance that a 6 sided die will land on 2. Reality is a die with sides you do not know either in range or in limit. Likely is just synonym from plausible, same deal. The sophist here is you. How about you learn some philosophy 100 before showing your ignorance?
![AMA on God [Hegelianism and Christianity]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iqEBxc9RnJo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for uploading this
been watching Majesty of Reason for a while now, nice to see you respond to him!
This is actually interesting -- and really funny! Injecting some real philosophy into these airhead "discourses."
Given that I’m an agnostic, and generally appreciate Dr. Joe Schmid, the guy behind Majesty of Reason, I appreciate this video by you. And I rarely visit this channel. This just came to my feed. Anselm was badly misrepresented. So bad. He’s done basically what has been called ‘stipulative revision.’ Which is the bad way of doing things analytic philosophers have noticed other analytic philosophers like doing. Like Dr. Schmid.
Was not aware that there was a term for changing the contents of arguments like this. Good to know! Yes, Anselm was done dirty. A few days ago I decided to work out how the misunderstanding of God as concept vs object comes about by misreading the phrasing of the original, and how even granting that issue, there are two additional supporting arguments that complete the argument. One for the reality of maximal reality itself (the highest containing unity), and a negative one for why maximal reality cannot be doubted on grounds of an endless layer of realities agglomerating from lower realities.
there's few things that make me suffer as much in philosophy than hearing the same old shoddy objections to the OA.
What would Hegel think of Anselm's ontological argument?
What do you know about the ontological argument thats old , the earth use to rotate in some weird way at the same within the philosophy of the mind.
its funny how you dont need all these abstract "arguments" for things that actually exist, like matter, language, planets, poetry. i can understand why religions spend so much effort keeping themselves convinced of the indefensible, but why try to convince others?
>things that actually exist like matter, language, planets, poetry
>matter
Doesn't exist
>language
No linguist seems to know what "it" is
>planets
Literally as real as inches, which aren't.
>poetry
Nobody knows what it is, so it isn't.
Literally all of these things are, matter and language above all, are abstractions which you project as real because you confirm your bias in the definition you make up. These are actually weaker concepts, much less clear and stable, than the concept of God as maximal reality.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophyhilarious and reeking of desperation.
So God exists as a “concept”. Got it.
You're not tracking. @@isidoreaerys8745
@@isidoreaerys8745 A non-concept is a concept, genius ;)
You would need such "abstract arguments" if you wanted to have a priori knowledge of the existence of planets poetry or whatever. People don't need that because the only reason they believe it is on posterior grounds anyway. And that obviously isn't an option for God.
Good shit dude.
You cannot define things into existence.
Greatest is Ill defined. And if such a being could be determined to be the objectively most great,
It’s very likely such a being simply does not exist.
This is nothing but sophistry
>You cannot define things into existence.
You couldn't define existence objectively, yet here you are appealing to it as if you saying words makes existence anything to measure by.
>Greatest is Ill defined.
That you fail to understand it does not mean it isn't clear. As pointed out, greatness/perfection/reality are categories intelligible in the continuum of Being which we find in the Platonic model of participation.
>It’s very likely such a being simply does not exist.
As pointed out in this long video, "plausible", "probable", and in your case, "likely", are illegitimate concepts. Plausibility is subjective to the assumption of what you know and believe, and has nothing to do with reality itself. Probable has to do with the proper definition of a limit and that which is in it, like the chance that a 6 sided die will land on 2. Reality is a die with sides you do not know either in range or in limit. Likely is just synonym from plausible, same deal.
The sophist here is you. How about you learn some philosophy 100 before showing your ignorance?
atheist yapping about the OA any% speedrun