I would love to meet everyone’s objections with a response but I’m getting lost in the comments! I invite you to hit me up on x.com/Eschaton369 to have a conversation!
@@santiagovega2485 by is existence, I mean it in a thomistic sense, in that God is what holds existence together by being the ground of existence, not that everything is God.
@@nameforprofile603 because God is beyond creation in the way that his very being is purely act, not actualized by anything else. Creation is not pure act, and only actualized through God.
@@davidarvingumazon5024The being so based nothing else could be more based. (The greatest thing conceivable in which no greater thing can be conceived.)
I've got three main objections/questions: 1) Greatness is undefined/needs to be interpreted as potential by the "cause-effect" law that was used, thus closer to excellence than perfection: To unpack this, what I understand the "cause-effect" law to be is that "an effect can't go further than the very potential its cause held". Because I'm talking about potential, and because this proof relies on that single logic line, God would then be, encompass, or hold the potential of all that can be (conceived). When talking about feats, this is not perfection because perfection has not been proved to be possible, but rather excellence: taking that feat to its greatest possible limit. Still, the idea of God being what can be (conceived) also has darker tones to it: If all that can be is taken as a future possibility, temporal by nature, God is constantly shrinking infinitely fast as possibilities become impossibilities. God wouldn't be able to out-trascend time because our basic logic is built upon the assumption of time, and because we cannot conceive anything outside of it (it is unconceivable) 2) If Greatness is thought of as the most extreme side of a scale, like "personhood", this implies: 2.1) that God relies on the concept of "personhood" and therefore depends on it (there may be a way to dodge this tho); 2.2) there COULD be something that is at the lower point of the scale, contrary to what you say. The lowest conceivable thing on the scale if you will. Which, then again, can't be proved false, similarly to how the Greatest (conceivable) thing on the scale couldn't. This is NECESSARY because if something which is the Greatest is not the only thing on that scale, there will always be some other extreme to the scale. Any possible logic way to organize such a scale, by applying it to everything that can be, implies putting something at the bottom. Yes, perhaps a Pepsi is not human, but if we are to say a dog is more human than a Pepsi then we must find a set of criteria (quantifiable and ideally continuous) that says WHAT is more human than other. We can't say "if you check all these boxes you're as human as you'll get" either, because this means God is not greater than us in that aspect which should not happen, so its not a category of things as much as getting somewhere (that's why the criteria are ideally continuous). By implying "personhood" is not a category, not a set of things, but a scale, you imply there's a top (God) and a bottom (???). And if by property of the quality of "bottomhood", God is also the bottom, then God is contradictory and this argument dies from the get-go. 2.3) That last part can be reverted if instead of using scales you use categories, and God is not the greatest at everything, but simply holds the potential for all that can be, and everything emanates from Him. But that's not Ontological, that's Avicenna's Necessary Existence Proof, I think. 2.4) In neither case can God be "good", because that kind of concept has an opposite: evil. Any concept with a clear logical opposite can't be used for this God because this creates a contradiction. Even if it is only a category, God cannot be simultaneously good and evil, at least by logic. 3) "Conceivable". Gödel's Theorem of Incompleteness says: for any consistent mathematical system, there will be true statements that can't be proved. This may look dumb because its math and not logic, but logic systems are practically just math in the sense they have axioms, and statements derived from such axioms. What this theorem indicates is that there will always be a possible thing (a true statement in-math) that cannot be proved by logic (which axioms cannot prove, disprove, or describe). Axioms are unprovable statements too, so we might feel tempted to just add this new statement to our axioms and "complete logic", but what we've made is just another consistent mathematical system, which can be applied to the theorem all the same. There is an INFINITE amount of true, simultaneously unprovable statements. Logic can never be completed. I am saying "a true statement = a possible thing" because logic does not tell you what IS, it tells you what CAN BE possible. That's why sciences use logic, but are not entirely built upon it and use empirical evidence. In any case, what this means is that: A) the currently known logic is limited to describe possible things; B) because our capabilities to conceive things are limited by logic (a circle can never be a square so you can't imagine one), OUR and ANY ability to conceive is limited too; C) the Greatest Thing Conceivable is limited by our ability to conceive and by logic all the same. There will always be a possible thing that this Greatest Thing Conceivable won't have, because there are an infinite number of unconceivable possible things. This goes back to Time, in the first point: there are possible things outside of time, as nothing would contradict that, but they are unconceivable still. Overall, I think proving God's existence with logic is completely futile. Any God should be greater than logic anyways.
@@j.s.ospina9861 1) God to the Christian is the most actualized being. You got it right. If you're trying to fully mentally grasp that, good luck. Greatness is behavior, would you agree? 2) I think personhood could be interpreted as personality by the content creator. Maybe not though. An interesting question entered my noggin. You think God hates non actualized created beings? If so, is that based on your perception of him? I forgot what your third objection was. Sorry. I red it again, is it impossible for us to mathematically conceive of an infinitude?
@@Jtalkin_46 Could you explain what you mean by "actualized"? I don't understand For the third objection, that's actually a great example: we can grasp the concept of infinity, but we can't conceive infinity itself. We can understand the mathematical existence of infinity, as there is nothing logically impossible in its definition (just endless things) and many axioms actually hint at the existence of infinity, but infinity itself is beyond our capacity for conceiving. We can imagine counting 1 or 2 or 3 or 157029, and we can suppose we keep counting "forever", but we don't actually conceive the forever part. Of course, with normal algebra it is impossible to "prove" infinity. You can never sum enough 1s to get there, or divide something enough to get an infinite amount (without using the concept of infinity somewhere in your reasoning). And when you try to understand infinity under algebra's axioms (as a number you can substract from or add to), algebra breaks. That's why you never divide by 0. Yet, the concept on its own is perfectly useful and logically consistent for other things, like calculus and set theory. It is logically possible, but yet alien to our logic and imagination. Basically the reign of possible possibility is infinitely larger than the reign of possible conceivability, which is what our logic can prove. And that infinity already is made of inconceivable possibilities. Any God we can conceive, prove or imagine, even if as great as all that is conceivable, is infinitely small against true possibility.
@@j.s.ospina9861 As opposed to the idea of something being potential, according to Anselm, the trinity is completely actual. He has no "would-be" in terms of power and morality, he just is. Yet we have a concept of infinity, so someone has imagined that. Arguably, if what you say is true, the Trinity is the only one who completely understands the concept. How we understand it is through divine revelation.
@@j.s.ospina9861 We don't need a God we can conceive of based on our opinion of who/what is best. We need a God who's actually the best. What God has defined himself as.
0. Good points, and thank you for getting me to think about this further. 1. Greatness appears to be a linguistic bridge to meaning degree of completeness. To understand Up, look Down at "lesser" beings, such as the animals. Even they have varying degrees of "completeness" in regards to what a being could be. Be it, qualities, emotions, capability for action, intellect, intelligence, etc. The idea is that we did not create ourselves (you nor I have creative power beside procreation which is not the same) therefore we are an Effect. Simply there has to be a greater Cause to our Effect. Additionally, a creator would naturally be a person of higher degree out of our bounds of conception, just as we exist out of the bounds of animal conception. 2.1 Don't think a God would depend on this notion, but would have left it conceivable as a trace. 2.2 Humanity, personhood, etc. are not in themselves abstractions and the lowest form of life is probably plant life as they exist basically like computers. 2.3 That has to break apart with the simple Cause and Effect principle. Another thought is, if God wills all "things" into creation, then he would have all ability but may not race to do everything first. Like you create man, then man thinks using the brain you gave him, and he thinks about something you haven't yet. Still within your ability but might not use it quicker for some reason. 2.4 You say can't be but anyone with autonomy can choose to be Good or Evil by their actions, not what they could do and don't. That being said the thoughts involved with adding ingredient Evil have yet to be revealed. Probably had to happen for some reason, unless God isn't the only God and there were some rules that pre-existed. Okay I'm getting tired need to break here. Thanks again.
That's because it's a chair. A contingent thing. There are lots of things that we define that must exist. For one logic itself. It's less that we are defining something into existence but that we are looking at all possibilities and discovering that when a thing has these properties it must exist. I don't need a knowledge of the world. I can define a infinite amount of things and look at the world to see that some of those things exist and recognize that some of them must exist. Like truth existence maths and logic
@@mitslev4043 Well said. There are truths and then there are necessary truths. I learned that from reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy. You can imagine a tree growing tigers instead of fruits, but you can't imagine 0 being equal to 1.
Right. It reminds me of Plato's Forms. We have no real proof of the forms, just Plato's argument that us learning things is just us remembering the forms. It's a cool, interesting idea, but it's totally unfalsifiable. The fact that we're supposed to be impressed by the ontological argument is an insult. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes 🤷
And then, Immanuel Kant came in with his "Critique of Pure Reason" and annihilated ontological arguments. "Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations in it. Logically, it is merely the copula of a judgment." -Kant
Charles Hartshorne, influenced by process philosophy, argued that Kant misunderstood what the ontological argument was trying to accomplish. Hartshorne suggested that the argument is not claiming existence as a predicate in the conventional sense but is rather showing that the concept of God entails God’s existence because God’s essence includes necessary existence. In this view, Kant’s objection is sidestepped because the argument doesn’t treat existence as a contingent attribute but as an essential and necessary part of the concept of God.
@@Esch-a-ton3 And being responded to, especially in a time of impossibility for rebuttals, doesn't automatically mean an overturning of his argument. Kant's argument remains meritable and trumps Harthshorne's response, even centuries after his passing. Kant's critique centers on the idea that ontological arguments are problematic because they involve a kind of circular reasoning or tautology. This means that the ontological argument doesn't provide a genuine proof of God's existence but rather merely repeats the same definition twice, especially since it presupposes what it aims to prove.
@@Esch-a-ton3 The sad thing is, that even centuries after his passing, Harthshorne's response has contributed no actual substance to the argument, and remains especially exactly the same as those who proposed the ontological argument, whether it be Anselm or Descartes. In a sense, he ironically repeated the definition provided for by the predecessors, the definition of which, is based on a logic founded on a mere repetition of a definition in of itself.
Bro, that's like the conclusion of 4 years of my own reading and contemplating, - which I've been struggling to share with others through words - in like ten minutes. You know, this "this random media expressed my most precious thoughts better, than I do" feeling, impressed.
Essentially. 0 is a paradox. the same reason you cant divide 100/0 and it comes up undefined. How do you have nothing and something at the same time? Why do God and math connect? Accountability. Faith in the unknown, finding the variable. That tangible thing that you can look at in real life and decide to change. Sometimes we don't even have to look at the bigger picture. We can look at the smaller one and still gather the same information. It's how you look at things and how you draw conclusions and how it scales up or down. Humans are skeptic by nature because it helps us predict. this is why belief itself is so powerful. As well as faith. Faith is truth. It's the conclusion and the sum of all the information gathered. Though even that is subject to change... As it's all relative to a personal individual experience at different points in space and time... Hope this helps :) Edit: This is also why 0 is a placeholder. To having nothing means you had something or want something. Now you have to figure out the means of obtaining it. Which we know. It's easier to get something when you already have something. So what the hardest part of it all? Of life? It's starting. It deciding where to put your, time, energy, and being into.
existence is not a characteristic, the conclusion that god is the epitome of greatness and therefore must exist because greatness exists is as to say there would be a greatest number, but the greatest number is somewhere in infinity and infinity is not a number but a concept, therefore there is no greatest number since it can always be increased by one.
The greatest issue I have with this argument is that it takes abstract things and thoughts like "perfection" which exist only as concepts in our heads and claims they are necesseary. My argument for why there is probably no God is that we humans see the world from our human perspective. Human perspective is to humanize inanimate objects, animals, and even imaginary concepts. We see the Universe from our human perspective and this human perspective also being obscured by the limitations of our minds and bodies makes it so we cannot see the Universe as it is. Cold or hot don't exist, it's just intensity of vibrations of the molecules. Colours don't exist, it's just different wavelengths of light. Thunder is not something being upset at us for not adhering to it's will, it's just discharge of energy. And that's how I see the ontological argument. As trying to figure out things trough purely flawed human prism which sees the world trough mixture of thoughts, feelings and abstractions. In reality there is no thing that is perfect nor thing that is necesseary. These are purelly man made concepts that help us understand that which our mind cannot grasp. And if our mind cannot grasp it there is no way of answering them as long as we don;t go beyond human perspective and overcome our limitations.
@@WHYISEVERYHANDLEALREADYTAKEN9 I don't know. I have no way of knowing that at the moment. My best guess is Universe exists in the state of fluctuation. Turns from one state to another. constantly. So before the big bang there was no nothing but the Universe was simply in a different state from current one. So, there may be no beginning at all. Or maybe there was. I have no idea and assuming variables to make a pretense of an answer to keep our human minds at ease seems too much like lying to myself. If I want to remain honest with myself I gotta accept that I don't know.
@@WHYISEVERYHANDLEALREADYTAKEN9I can answer these as an atheist myself. We have several different theoretical models regarding what preceded the Big Bang. None of them are God. We're slowly eliminating models and refining the ones we have through experiment still. Hopefully, we'll narrow it down. My bet is on quantum fields. Something can't come from nothing, but spacetime itself still has zero point energy, so even in a pure vacuum there isn't nothing. Even the "space" between atoms is filled by the electron cloud. It's unclear if "nothing" has ever existed or is even possible in our universe. Spacetime itself can be thought of as a kind of thing or fabric under general relativity. The universe isn't created. It can't be. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; that's a fundamental law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, what we call the universe includes spacetime. Causality occurs within time so time itself literally cannot be caused. The universe is therefore uncaused and uncreated, at least according to our current understanding. Is that weird and counter-intuitive? Maybe to some, but that's what the math and experimental evidence demonstrates.
There exists some being that is necessary, that I would consider to be almost certain. Yet to describe the character and properties of this being any further takes considerable leaps of faith.
I’m not sure how you can pull “hot and cold” and “colors” don’t exist when you immediately provide examples of distinct structures containing distinct qualities after each assertion. Just because we perceive them in a certain way that may be limited does not mean it doesn’t exist.
All is fine and dandy until you realise that logic is a man-made construct, another tool to describe reality for human consciousness. Existence doesn't have to adhere to human logic, human logic has to adhere to existence. I'm not a philosopher but it seems to me that ontological argument is just an overcomplicated way to say "things exist thefore God". Which says nothing about properties of God, it's just calling the world we live in a god.
I think you misread the part where I suggested that logic has to adhere to existence. That's your answer. BTW since previous comment I read a bit and discovered that I accidentaly repeated David Hume's refutation of ontological argument (kinda, sorta). "Nothing new under the Sun", eh?
@@MrPlastyfikator hoo boy, i think i completely lapsed that part or had a stroke. I should stop engaging in logic and philosophy when it's late. My fault. At least you caught onto what I was arguing against, hypothetically speaking.
Numbers are a logical system at work outside of man's involvement. Light will travel at the same speed in a vacuum. The ratio of a circle's circumference and diameter are always pi. A rolling rock will always have the same kinetic energy in relation to its potential energy. The list goes on. Therefore logic isn't man made by we are capable of engaging with it and using it.
@@Esch-a-ton3 The theory of gravity has empirical content. The multiverse and dark matter are speculative ideas, so yeah, they are both worthless so far. I'm shocked by your rhetoric. You seem to be clueless after all.
The underlying assumptions in this argument are very easy to disprove. One of the assumptions used is "In order for me to judge greatness, I first need to have a knowledge of the top of the scale of greatness and the top of the scale is the greatest possible thing that could be perceived." The "logical" conclusion being that "the being is necessary" because we "have a scale of greatness by which necessity requires something top be at the top." This is a fallacy of presupposition or a "loaded question". The reality is our lives are filled with "scales" that do not have an upper most boundary. For example, we can still count things using the number line even though numbers are infinite. There is no greatest number possible which no greater number can be perceived. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that for all concepts, like "greatness", there is an upper most bound to the scale. Conclusion: The video claims that "god exists by its nature as the greatest thing imaginable." However, even if we measure greatness on a scale, its false to assume a "greatest thing" must exist. The top of the scale of "greatness" does exist. Likewise, god does not exist.
Could you explain the last line? I understand why the conclusion would be that some concepts are do not possess an upper bound but how does that correlate to the non-existence of a god?
I think I understand, what I think your saying is, in a simplified way is that there is no boundary to "greatness" in "reality" it's a constantly moving scale that has no end. My argument is that there is a boundary, but first I'll talk about some things in your argument that I want to examine: The example you gave of there being no boundary is math, a kind of system, but made by a man, or multiple men. Which was made with infinite numbers in mind. It was set there by the creator/s of math. A "reality" one or more people made to define parts of the world if not the whole world. Now this is where things get subjective and I present my argument: So, I think there is a boundary to greatness, because humans have boundaries in themselves, somebody could help a million people, but at one point in time that person will have to stop to sleep. And even if that person does greatness another day, he or she will have to stop to sleep. And even if they die and another person does greatness, that other person will die at some point, on and on until the heat death or whatever of our planet. Then the final act of "greatness" would have happened. That is the end of "greatness" or what we define it as. A boundary to ourselves, our death, would be boundary to greatness. And what would exist after is creation. Or whatever another advanced species defines it as. As for a creator, I don't know. But I do know religions strive for morality. The greatest thing. The boundary.
@@waterbottlefilms6563 i understood what you meant finally. ok so, you mean that the greatest possible thing that can be conceived must be reality as that is the greatest possible thing in this reality that we know of. however, my question is that this assumes that the "greatest possible" thing is in the idea of scale, right? if then existence is the greatest thing in the idea of scale and hence forth god; then that means very thing in the known and unknown universe together is god. this implies that we as humans are inherently a portion god no matter how small...? i thing the idea of "greatest possible" does not necessarily have to be of scale, but instead could be something else. for example, it could be the something beyond "reality" itself. but then again if it is beyond "reality" (assuming reality is the dimension from which we perceive the world logically) then it is not conceivable making contradict the definition of the generic god. so those that imply that the to obey the definition of the generic god, the god must be existence itself and hence we must be part of god. which means everything material is part of god; hence forth, everything is part of the greatest and at the very least has properties of the greatest? and assuming that what you said about the greatest being perfect in very aspect possible, it must mean that we and everything else is inherently perfect...? yet, we all know that has to be incorrect if not the standard by which perfection is judge must be illogical. meaning god itself is everything (so omnipresent and greatest conceivable) but also illogical if not then imperfect (which would defy the definition of the generic god) thus wouldn't this prove god as an illogical being or thing? wouldn't that mean the very idea of judging it by logic is invalid without contradiction of some kind? please explain im so confused...
But there is a concept in math for a greatest number. It's called infinity. In a scale of zero to infinity, if there is something that is infinite, there is no number greater than it. So the question is, can your scale be infinite? If so, is there something that is infinite. The universe is infinite.
@@srossiter81 The counter argument for that that I discovered was that infinity isn't actually a physical, material number but an intangible concept. It simply refers to numbers so large they become insignificant and incomprehensible for us as humans. As numbers this large cannot have a practical effect. A proof of this is that, if infinity is a physical number, what is the number right before infinity? You cannot answer that as the very line at which we stop giving something a number just call it as infinity is not defined or universally agreed upon. And for the argument of the universe being infinite. The observable universe is currently about 93 billion light years with the size of anything beyond that completely unknown. Of course we can simply call this infinity because the real size of the universe then must be so large it is practically insignificant to us as an observer. However, as the edge of the universe is yet to be found, automatically calling it as boundless cannot be possible as there is no logical proof that the edge of the universe doesn't exists. Still, this is just my interpretation on the matter. Do you have any perspective by which infinity can be material? Please share ^^
He uses math to explain god like what u can see math u can’t see god not the same shit 💀 why does god even need to exist the universe works exactly how it would without a god
@@Idk-xr3nu what dude no there is child abuse god sits there and watches no excuses doesn’t matter if ur god that is wrong 😑 why does the universe need a god like the universe is here before us and after us like we’re not that special humans created the idea of a god because they don’t like the feeling of no after life it scares them
Greatness isn’t a good term for it, as the argument was refined that became predicated. God is the thing that does not require anything else to exist, God is the thing that is not dependent while everything else is dependent on God, since logically something has to be independent of all things. And that’s greatly simplifying the argument
@@TQFMTradingStrategies yea I can see the logic there, I’d agree that there is *something* upon which we are all dependent, that thing being a higher consciousness seems unlikely though. Either way while I respect the epistemic process formed in apologetic arguments like this, at the end of the day though the number of people legitimately swayed by them is most likely near 0 because logical word puzzles don’t have any contact with the experience of people in the actual world
@@Swarm561 it’s true most of this stuff is pretty deep down the theological rabbit hole so to say. I’ve always found the argument and it’s evolutions interesting because of my math/physics background. But for most people it’s just arguing for the sake of it lol.
@@khrawbryan if you are creation then your flesh becomes food yes? Ok so say you do not create food persay, that does not mean you, a creation are not made of the stuff, your matter may go through all kinds of stages, rotting, fresh, organic, inorganic. Always changing, always devouring and being devoured by time or tooth it matters not. Worship is irrelevant in the face of such a universal existance. Does not matter if one plans to worship or be worshipped, the end result will be the same in time. So bon apitite.
My problem with the ontological argument is the fact that it heavily relies on objective definitions for subjective concepts. It's not a universally applicable argument since, depending on how "greatness," "goodness," and "badness" are defined, the argument fails. If you were to say that the definitions chosen are the only correct ones, I would simply accuse you of confirmation bias.
"My problem," "I would," *proceeds to make an objective statement about the subjectivity of truth* (self defeating argument) This is the age old atheist-materialist dilemma. Everything is defined bottom up to the point that the higher things no longer exist. You might as well say you don't exist because your matter can be rearranged at any time. But it isnt. You are still here. This argument is working on a higher level than you are allowing yourself to engage with. Please try to participate at the proper level of analysis. It does not matter what the definition of a value is when one is discussing the structure of value. It is about the meta level.
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1st 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝. I'm specifically discussing the definitions of concepts that we need to take for granted for the argument to work. Are you saying there's only one way to define 'good'? I'm not trying to sound smart (I'm not that smart, after all). I just enjoy discussing these topics. I'd be more than pleased to hear more about your worldview. By the way, I'm not an atheist. Why would I assume a stance on something that can't be proven or disproven? Regarding your point about the atoms in my body being rearranged such that I wouldn't be myself anymore-where did you get that idea? A possibility is enough to invalidate reality? I wasn't saying there are no objective truths. I was saying people don't universally agree on the interpretation of these concepts, so it's wrong to assume that the definition aligned with my beliefs is the true one without any basis. Although your suggestion is compelling, I fail to see how the argument itself brings up what you're talking about. Are the definitions really that trivial to you?
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1st 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝. I'm specifically discussing the definitions of concepts that we need to take for granted for the argument to work. Are you saying there's only one way to define 'good'? I'm not trying to sound smart (I'm not that smart, after all). I just enjoy discussing these topics. I'd be more than pleased to hear more about your worldview. By the way, I'm not an atheist. Why would I assume a stance on something that can't be proven or disproven? Regarding your point about the atoms in my body being rearranged such that I wouldn't be myself anymore-where did you get that idea? A possibility is enough to invalidate reality? I wasn't saying there are no objective truths. I was saying people don't universally agree on the interpretation of these concepts, so it's wrong to assume that the definition aligned with my beliefs is the true one without any basis. Although your suggestion is compelling, I fail to see how the argument itself brings up what you're talking about. Are the definitions really that trivial to you? Now that I'm re-reading my first statement, I see why you got that impression. I said "subjective concepts" when I actually meant "concepts with subjective definitions". My fault, it's hard to articulate my thoughts in a foreign language.
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1st "You might as well say you don't exist because your matter can be rearranged at any time. But it isnt. You are still here." Except when you are 6 feet under.
I am so glad you mentioned God is existence itself. Thats exactly what Bishop Robert Barron taught, and though I'm not catholic (im orthodox) I agree with his definition. God isnt so much the best being there is, he is beyond the concept of being
Glad you enjoyed! I get most of my philosophy/theology from the eastern tradition. I love some systematic theology as well but I think eastern theology covers all the bases.
God is existence and God is beyond the concept of Beeing seem contradictory to me. How can something be the literal a and and be beyond a? Law of contradiction? It's either one or another Does all existence need a cause? Yes/No?
The axiom only works if you believe that it's true. Your definition of god as "the greatest thing conceivable which no greater thing can be conceived" only works because you're assuming that there is a god because that's what you were taught. Just like you said imagine a world where there is a god, you can just as easily reverse that and say imagine a world where there is no god. Both can be imagined, so that doesn't make either of them true. The universe can exist with or without a god, or gods.
Exactly, this is just a word salad pseudo-argument that tries to define "god" into existence through wordplay and twisting subjective concepts. You can easily swap "god" out to Krishna and say that therefore, Krishna is proven (or any other omnipotent fictional character you want). Besides, there is no objective "greatness". Human technology is "greater" than dog technology, but dog 4-leggedness is "greater" than human 4-leggedness. "Great" is a vague catch-all term, totally unscientific. What's the exact trait being measured? What's the unit and methodology of measurement? The channel owner can't explain this, because obviously he is not from the field of hard sciences. In the end, it's just mental gymnastics with no empirical basis in reality. Also, the channel owner sounds like a self-important university freshman eager to "prove" his own faulty preconceptions. I expected better!
"A god" "gods" Imagine using these terms when trying to critique any classical theist tradition and believing you know what you're talking about. Praytell, friend, what is "a god"? What are "gods"? Something tells me you conceive them as people but, like, SUPER powerful. Like Ironman or Superman or something! Is that right? If this is your conception (and let's be honest, it is), you're a child. I don't even find the ontological argument particularly compelling as a philosophical argument for God. It's useful as a devotional exercise.
@@Esch-a-ton3 great video, but for this argument to hold, the hypothetical realities where God exists have to exist themselves. Think about it, how can a world that doesn’t exist, affect our world that exists.How can a simple idea, affect our world? It’s an imaginary world, not a real world.
from the arguments ive seen so far in this video, 1, god is either the string in string theory or space itself, or 2, they are not seeking to prove a god, they are seeking to prove a god-shaped concept. Space/the Universe could be god because it is all knowing(contains all information), all powerful (nothing would exist without it), perfect(as it is all that exists, therefore nothing can be better), but not personal, as to be personal implies capacity to think/have thoughts, not just "contain" them, same thing as all knowing. secondly, this argument functions on a fundamental misdefinition of the question. just because it fits the criteria which approximately fit the characteristics of God does not mean it is God. they are stuffing the concept of the universe into a vaguely God-shaped box.
And yet you've missed the point. No one is following a mixture of different religions, all religions follow the same principle of existence. Siddhartha Gautama is literally just Jesus, and vice versa. We just tell different stories for different cultures to understand and reach divine, righteous knowledge, and grow a peaceful soul
@@HavvelMusic You have definitely never read bible or Buddhist scriptures. Unlike jesus, buddha is not god, in fact there is no god in buddhism and everyone can become buddha so buddha is not special entity. Unlike Christianity, you don't go to hellll for eternity for your beliefs in Hinduism and buddhism. Please never compare Indian & Chinese religions to abrahamic ones ever again.
two things i would like to point out: 1) god (the ultimate thing) is not abstract. it is pure existence. 2) what is "personhood" really? can we view this idea outside of antrhopocentrism? why do we make distinction between a rock and a human? what is the logical mechanism in this categorization or ranking of being?
one may say that pure existence is abstract, which it is without knowing exactly what it is. how do we know/can we know or perfectly conceive this pure existence?
[this is my very crude and fractured understanding but] 1. what is personhood? personhood by definition is the quality of being an individual human. thus, it implies that any quality that can be closer associated with human starting from physical body characteristics to phycological characteristics (sentience and sapience) are human characteristics but not those that make it individual hence forth personhood is just the behaviour and belief, culture as well as personality which makes a human unique to another human, as being a human is 2. Can we view outside of anthropocentrism + where do we make the distinction? this makes the idea of viewing it in an anthropocentric view as the only option as the very concept of personhood prerequisites the object in question to be human which then can be isolated as an individual due to its quirks. this also makes anthropocentrism invalid in the context as if personhood was to be a numeric scale or any scale of relativity, all objects/matter/life/ will inherently be equal to 0 in the scale of personhood excluding human and only a human will have any 'value' of personhood in the scale of personhood; if not, a logical contradiction is made as the definition has been altered. 3. What is the logical mechanism in this categorising of being? (i call the logical mechanism the standard which you'll get if u read i hope?) now, this gets messy. so lets. just assume for the sake of trying to explain my thoughts that the most logical mechanism of "ranking" is reference. we compare to things relative to each other on a specific standard then make judgement on which is greater. this implies to rank anything we need the highest possible object as reference as that is how logic operates: by comparisons. from what i said on 2, this means god will have a 'value' of 0 in the scale of personhood which means it has a lack of perfection of personhood. then will come to the question of what defines perfection. perfection is the state or quality of being perfect, a person or thing considered to be perfect, the action or process of improving something until it is faultless. in other words, perfection is the act of being perfect. then what is perfect? having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. as the generic definition of god goes "the greatest thing conceivable for which no greater thing can be conceived"; the interpretation of in the video of which is that god must be something that has achieved perfection in all aspects of existence. now this being or thing that is the maximal perfection of every aspect of existence is our scale by which we compare all other things and beings to rank by the relativeness of it to the top. now, u must see the logical paradox here: if a being or thing that is perfect in every aspect exists then they themselves cannot be existence as a whole as that would mean everything is perfection intrinsically which mean everything is equally god and not god, as by the generic definition of god: god is the greatest possible thing conceivable. (if the greatest possible thing is all then it is everywhere which means there is noway to differentiate it from other things thus, making it logically inconceivable as for conceive something is to compare it.) though, this is the only comprehendible way in which something can be omnipresent (random idea not really related to the topic ikik). does this disprove the existence of the very top which could be used as the standard of categorisation or a scale? no. it just implies that the categorisation if universal and not interfered by human biases must not be logical. it must transcend or be in some way inferior to the very foundations that make up the concept of logic by which we, as humans perceive our reality. (i brought up the idea of inferiority as there is equal proof of standard being both inferior or transcending the very foundations of logic making it inconceivable). and as the standard, god (i know im using the 2 as the same thing) to be the greatest it must not be conceivable, then that means that the only logical way for it to be universally valid; the top, the perfection of all aspects, the standard, god should be illogical to be logically applicable to existence. also if this very greatest thing cannot be conceived it goes against what the generic definition of god is. which mean the generic god must either be inferior to the standard god, does not exists, or our definition of a generic god is inherently flawed. so as you can see, categorisation needs a reference point to be compared as or else categorisation is impossible. and to fulfil that we need either the highest possible or the lowest possible for the scale of categorisation and ranking to be the most accurate and universally applicable. however in case of the highest possible being or thing, it cannot be existence itself but if it is logical; it will contradict itself. hence, the logical mechanisms of categorisation and ranking is a logical paradox whose only solution (i know of) is an illogical standard. note: yes the lowest possible was not mentioned cause i have no idea what that is and im just a guy sleep deprived at 1am in rainy ass night whose coffee supply just vanished : (
I had a very rich college career. I ended up with degrees in Molecular Biology, Chemistry, and Machine Tool Technology. I was also an Honors Program student and stayed with that program for all five years I went to college. I carried an overload of credits every semester and a max GPA every semester. I studied Art History and it covered a lot of Religious works of art. I studied theater also. I studied all kinds of things and a broad range including foreign languages. I literally wanted to learn all that I could, and I learned a lot. I also took a course in Philosophy, and out of all of the courses I took this one was the only class that was absolutely nauseating. It was like trying to drive a car while only looking at the mirrors. It was mental masturbation and narcissism about one's own thinking on a scale that made me want to roll my eyes out of my head. There were some interesting discussions, and I tried to maintain my enthusiasm, but it gave diminishing returns the more I dwelled on it. We covered religion and this god character in philosophy. And of course, my professor presented us with the Ontological Argument. It was beyond stupid. Why does one have to imagine a "being" at all? Why does the universe necessitate a god when the universe doesn't necessitate a god at all? The idea is the biggest self pleasuring and egocentrism possible in any field. Why would mortal brains need to have something such as this to exist at all? The ontological argument is just essentially the same thing as saying "Look at the trees" and creating a dude most high based on man's own image. Philosophers might need a god to just think "wow the ultimate philosopher ever ever ever in the sky sky sky until I can't even imagine it oh my brain hurts!" It sounds that infantile because it is. We are mortals. We are not created. We die. The Cosmos is trying to kill us at any moment and every moment of the day, and it is only by happenstance that the puddle of water fits the depression it sits in. People need a god because people started from a sperm and an egg and were tiny individuals that are doomed to die. But needing something doesn't necessitate its existence. I could argue that Supergirl exists because I imagined it, therfore Supergirl exists and she has the hots for me. It is that dumb. It is that perposterous. And it is that egocentric about the "power" of imagination and the willingness to ignore the obvious and embrace the movie that plays in the head. I did well in college by not ignoring the obvious and by not watching silly vain movies that play in my head. And it was well worth it to pay attention.
@elio3985 one does not simply read a long and well written comment only to conclude that it's "bait" unless they just want to say something but have nothing to say.
God will do the absolute minimum to expose himself to this reality as not to affect our free will however when you truly search for him he leaves pieces of evidence for that person alone and works through others.
@@theunknownatheist3815it is real, but you have to really be observative for it to work plus, altrough i cannot say for you since i am not you nor know anything about you, I can say that it is indeed possible to figure out God's doing on your life. Maybe you didn't quite really understand what "hearing God" means or you were looking at the wrong places or simply were not able to see if it was him or not, but he certainly did try to speak to you while you were searching for him. Not saying it is easy or that you did something wrong, but maybe you just didn't knew how to figure out if it was him or not
@@theunknownatheist3815im your position, looking but can’t really “see” or “find”. But trust them, he is literally walking looking down your shoulder as you search, waiting for you to realize
Just because something is conceivable doesn't mean it has to exist... Plus there is nothing that can be more human than a human. Things can be more like Coca Cola or less like Coca Cola, bit nothing can be more Coca Cola than Coca Cola.
But what causes human to be human and Coca Cola to be Coca Cola ? There has to be a conceivable and existing entity to be based off/ reason to exist for another thing to exist
@@sofi-bluestoons7356 I don't get your last sentence but what causes humans to be humans is (depending on what you mean by "causes") a) procreation, b) the latin word "humanus" meaning "earthly" or c) evolutionary biology. For Coca Cola it would be a) Production, b) the name stems as a combination of the coca leaf and the cola nut. c) its invention by John S. Pemberton
Actually, that has nothing to do with the argument. Your examples are all dependent concepts that rely on external factors for definition. Thus, a thing can be more Coca Cola than Coca Cola because what defines Coca Cola can be altered. This isn't even an abstract point, the Coca Cola company has altered the production of their beverage several times. Ultimately, Coca Cola is defined by the ones acting upon it, who are conscious agents. If these consciousnesses use their agency to alter the tangible properties of ingredients and mixing processes, it will no longer be the same, yet remain Coca Cola. The ontological argument is specifically about an independent existence that is not internally changed despite the view from external agencies.
@@lucaarmillei1682 you dont say anything logic. HEAR ME DUMBASS GOD by Anselm as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." This means that God's greatness includes all perfections, including existence.If we can conceive of a being that has every perfection, including existence, then this being must exist. Otherwise, we would be able to conceive of something greater-namely, a being that does exist, which contradicts the definition. you scrullhead said that argument presented suggests that just because we can conceive of something (e.g., a perfect island), it doesn't mean it has to exist. This is true for contingent beings or objects but not for a necessarily existing being. you understood that?
0:02 I’ve been thinking about this my whole life and understand god isn’t a singular thing so it’s nothing and everything at the same time. God is infinite right? Then why bind it to a form? It doesn’t have one, it’s countless and why we emerge from the pool of entangled differences. Not just the small entangles and shares so when we FIND god it’s hard to understand but the part where we are made in its image, we are made of the pieces and by the weights of relativity. We are reflective creatures. Not just like reflecting without anything else but we are what we eat. Like sharing the mind with the potential and that form is just one potential but relatives are just around the corner. So the info we pay attention to is like the info we share with not take. 7 is lucky and divine and all that because it’s directional, the king isn’t a person that takes control but shares his mind and potential with the people, god is the infinite that shares so we can be free. God is the infinite and denial blocks some thoughts and understandings and if we just deny it’s like tearing each other down. Turning the other cheek stops the blind from controlling and the one eyed man is king. Maybe that’s confusing. The king is not of himself because it’s selfish and not of the seven directions. One has to share with the seven directions and not control but share to expand understanding just like with knowledge. The info is out there and we try to listen but we listen while searching so we don’t find the truth but what we seek. When we share with god/everything, it’s like thinking of the differences and sharing the feelings with the info, sharing the body and mind with the soul. I mean, as a baby you come out with not much and the world shares with you to form you. Your knowledge doesn’t come from inside but shared and you listen with your eyes and ears and everything. I think this neuralink and synchron devices may open our natural form into something different and it’s not wrong but we keep getting lost in the differences so expanding the mind in many forms is possible like translation. So from anywhere you can share to another place. It’s expansion not linear or binary but all directions. Reflection shares that we have freedom and will because it’s shared through the pieces. Our body is always free and so is our mind but we bind it up with these strings of differences and confusion. Like identity, you are you but only because you share with the world and universe to be something. The knowledge helps us be one with the infinite but reflection of something so large and growing has us confused like the identity crisis. Don’t deny yourself to become what you feel, listen to your feelings but don’t let them control. It’s like giving your mind over to lies instead of understanding. Does the world control you and your actions or do you reflect on the self and share your will with intelligence? The animals don’t know of good and evil and aren’t burdened by the walls it builds or the judgment it has us feel. It’s nature but when nature reflects it grows in differences like evolution and entangling with chemicals and such being passed on or genes or ideas. We share to become something greater than the selfish. We share back what we listen to.
@@Warrior_of_kristus you’re getting hung up on the words lol Why would it be his? Jesus wasn’t god but someone who shared with the infinite and did not deny so we all have that potential so he is not god itself but our savior for showing us we could change. He showed us the path to accepting and unlocking our potential as well as the rest of the potentials we could share with the infinite. God is not one but the many, its form is not bound but shared and the understanding is the word of god. I always wonder how it’s a he or a she when the shape is infinite but yeah you’re right, it could be that it is male to you. See, all gods we imagine are part of the potential so they aren’t gods but beings with the same potentials. We are not so far from god but nothing is god itself. The reason why nothing is God is because we reflect and see in its image. Through reflection we can escape the limits we place on ourselves. We miss the point Jesus passed and it’s not for a deity in the sky. He shared his life with the seven directions, not just a single entity. He listened and shared hope and showed us we can also be as solid as stone in our faiths as well and not budge. So he taught us to protect ourselves and to change.
Saying something can exist or should exist doesn’t mean it does exist, not to mention the subjectivity of “greatest.” Also, the “balance and harmony” argument can’t work because our definition is based on our own human conceptions. I don’t think the universe is balanced, it’s expanding and has a force able end.
That isnt the point of the ontological argument. It merely provides the axiomatic framework for the existence of God. We can then deduce (and should) by inferring from the creation what caused it. The real proof is in learning the repeated proofs that point back to God.
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1stYou can't just assert the existence of something axiomatically. That's completely irrational. Even cogito ergo sum is technically contingent on the observation of the cogito part.
I kinda thought the same thing as soon as he said that. And how the greatest version of this god somehow cares about what I eat on a given day of the week is laughable tbh
Here's my version: I call it the Kalam Ontolological Argument (KOA): 1. The cosmos began to exist Evidential Support? -- Guth-Villenkin Theorem --problem of actual infinites 2. If the cosmos began to exist, then it is possible that it had a cause for its existence Evidential Support? --Inductive logic --Ex nihilo, nihilo fit --Law of Cause and Effect 3. Therefore, it is possible that the cosmos had a cause for its existence 4. Axioms: The nature of this cause must be timeless, spaceless, maximal in power and knowledge. It must also have agency and will. 5. Equivalence: the cause must be a maximally great being 6. Therefore, it is possible that a maximally great being (MGB) exists 7. Equivalence: This means that an MGB must exist in some possible world (modal logic) 8. If an MGB exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds. Why? Because a being that exists only in one or some possible worlds is less great than a being who exists in all possible worlds. 9. Therefore, an MGB must exist in all possible worlds. 10. Our actual world (cosmos) is a member of the set of possible worlds (cosmoi). 11. Therefore, an MGB (commonly known as God) is real and exists in our actual world.
I am not smart enough to have a rebuttal to this argument, so I ran it through an AI to see what it says about it. Here's an interesting read for you. The argument presented is a version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) combined with Ontological reasoning. Here are some points where logical fallacies or weaknesses might be identified: 1. **Equivocation Fallacy (Ambiguity):** - The argument might be guilty of equivocation, where the term "possible" is used ambiguously. In one sense, it might mean "not logically contradictory," but later, it could be implying "plausible or likely." This shift can weaken the argument. 2. **Assumption of Modal Logic (Steps 7-9):** - The argument heavily relies on modal logic, particularly the concept that if a maximally great being (MGB) exists in one possible world, it must exist in all possible worlds. This step assumes the validity of S5 modal logic (where if something is possibly necessary, then it is necessary). This assumption may not be universally accepted or self-evident. 3. **Leap from Possibility to Actuality (Step 6-9):** - The argument makes a leap from the possibility of an MGB to its necessity without sufficiently justifying why mere possibility should entail actuality. This is often seen as a major leap in ontological arguments. 4. **Axiomatic Assumptions (Step 4):** - The nature of the cause as "timeless, spaceless, maximal in power and knowledge, agency, and will" is assumed without sufficient justification. These attributes are traditionally associated with the concept of God but are introduced here without argument. 5. **Circular Reasoning:** - The argument might be circular if it's assuming what it seeks to prove. For example, it defines the cause as a maximally great being (MGB), which already assumes the conclusion that such a being exists. 6. **False Dichotomy (Implicit):** - The argument seems to assume that the cosmos either had a cause or it didn’t, with no other possibilities. However, alternative explanations (e.g., a non-traditional cause or no cause in the usual sense) might be ignored. 7. **Actual Infinites and the Cosmos (Step 1):** - The mention of "the problem of actual infinites" assumes that the cosmos beginning to exist solves this problem. However, some physicists and philosophers argue that actual infinites are not inherently problematic. 8. **Inference from Cosmology (Step 1):** - The Guth-Vilenkin theorem suggests a beginning of the universe in some models, but it doesn't necessarily support all the metaphysical claims made here. The inference from cosmology to a metaphysical cause might be overstated. Overall, while this argument is a sophisticated and creative combination of cosmological and ontological reasoning, it does contain some logical leaps and assumptions that may not be universally accepted, and it could be vulnerable to several critiques on logical grounds.
Yeah but you pulled those axioms out your ass, ya dingus. Why a being. Why not an event. Why not a being lacking one of those traits. A hypothetical "greatest being imaginable in all aspects but the capability for lactose tolerance" must exist, as it wouldn't be the "greatest being imaginable in all aspects but the capability for lactose tolerance" if it didn't.
@@kucckumelon2837 i will never read anything purporting to be logical that's written by AI. Your silly little infinite monkey based chinese box cannot even reliably solve basic algebra, and has recently lost a court case for a bunch of lawyers by just making up a nonexistent precident. Stop using that goofy ass thing.
This isn't as good of an argument as you think it is. Around a year ago, I had an interaction in my DM's with a Muslim from Angola who basically made the same argument you made. Turns out that people much smarter than you and I have absolutely defeated the KOA. It took like 5 minutes for me to find videos that did so.
Anselm's argument for why maths fits the definition of god better than any personal being. It is complete, yet infinite. It is highly complex anf yet has no flaws. We can't necessarily access all of it or understand it all and yet we know it to be perfect. It doesn't need personhood, since that requires a mind, which is itself a process of thinking and remembering and experiencing. An active process cannot be a part of a perfect and complete being, because then it will never reach its ultimate state, making it forever incomplete.
Yet sadly godel's incompletness theroems show that mathmatical systems can never be entirely 'perfect', still technically a human language :( I'll still let math be my god though
@foswex Well not quite, it means that the human expression of maths can't be complete or access all parts of maths. But I'm a mathematical realist, which means I believe maths exists with or without human description of it.
the first problem i found (im at 6:32) is your axiom of greatness because it assumes value. In a world without a god that gives some form of abslute meaning to our world and existenze everything is just random and in some way the same, just a phenomenom. By this application value would just be a subjective measurement to find a direction in the endless possibility of available actions. therefore it is not an objective truth and your axiom fails to deliver a deductive reasoning, since while a scale of physical existenz like length is objective, value is not in any way mesurable if not under axioms that we subjectivly or intersubjectivly develop.
I thought of this same thing. We "invent" measurements, scales, categories and names. Things don't intrinsically measure or fit into certain category. They just exist. They don't have any order, we order them by imaginary standards.
There are probably lots of critiques of the Ontological Argument by smarter people than me, but I'm going to take a crack at it. One way I can think this argument might be challenged: the concept of infinity. If one posits a "greatest possible entity that could be conceived", one could argue that there isn't necessarily any limit on any given aspect of greatness. Greatness could very well be an infinite scale. Therefore, there is no "greatest" possible being that could be conceived, because no matter how great of a being you're thinking of, there must exist one that is greater still. To be the "greatest" possible being is, by definition, impossible. Here's another take in the same vein: if the greatest possible being necessarily has to exist, then surely the second greatest has to exist also, and the third greatest, and so on; each only being infinitesimally less great than their better. However, if all of those beings have designs on intervening in the universe, then because the second greatest being is only infinitesimally less great than the greatest being (and so on) then they must inherently disagree on some aspect of the universe. The greatest being is right, of course, because it's the greater being, but the second greatest being is almost as powerful as the greatest being, so the greatest being has to spend almost all of its power keeping the second greatest being in check so it doesn't screw everything up. Same with the second greatest being vs. the third greatest, and so on. Therefore, intervention in the universe must be impossible, because all the "Gods" that can be conceived spend all their time struggling with each other for control of the universe and therefore have no ability to actually intervene in it. These are more of an argument against religious belief than against the existence of God itself, though. The first argument basically says any religion could say it worships the "supreme" God, and that the gods of all other religions are inferior, and it would be impossible to disprove them. The second argument says that all the Gods are way too busy dealing with each other to care about us anyway, so worship is basically meaningless. Personally, I feel like the Ontological Argument makes the idea of the existence of God seem even more dubious and bizarre if you take it seriously. But hey, I'm no philosophy expert. Y'all can make up your own minds.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~Epicurus
“If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?” -Percy Bysshe Shelley
Well, if anyone has spent time listening to the atheist experience, you will have heard this argument many times. It doesn't prove a God because while the definition used in this video is convenient, the usual description of God by nearly all major religions is.. Omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent.. All knowing, all powerful, and all loving. I know that even within those mainstream religions there are underlying teachings which differ from that popular definition. But that brings us to a bigger scenario. Let's hypothetically argue that a conscious God (not a force such as ain soph aur, big bang etc etc) exists. In order for this reality to be the product of it's creation it must lack one of the afore mentioned three attributes. If it isn't omniscient or omnipotent then it becomes as irrelevant as if it didn't exist at all. Why? Because all we need to do is observe nature. Looking beyond our safe bubble of civilization. Nature is carnal, merciless, and fueled by devouring and birthing itself. Hence the oroboros. Pain, misery, suffering and death, are all things which become apparent to lifeforms innately. Even a bacteria will try to escape the grasp of a predator and flee. The gazelle, the bunny, even the lion will do anything to avoid the agony of predation. So, if God created this reality, then why from the start, make such predatory nature an aspect of it's masterpiece? If it lacks omniscience, or omnipotence, then it couldn't prevent reality from being this way because it either doesn't know that suffering is happening, or it has created a reality which spiraled out of it's control. Yet if it is the greatest, most powerful thing of all, then lacking those attributes is an unlikely possibility. But there is another possibility, one that is more likely, and more horrible than the others. God lacks omnibenevolence. In other words, God is not all love, all good, but just like the lion, or serpent, enjoys the suffering of living things. It enjoys causing it, and feeling it through us. God is as malevolent as it is benevolent. Yet it goes further, if we were to impose this mentality upon a fellow human, we would say that they are mentally unstable. One moment loving, the next, predatory. So, maybe God is actually omnimalevolent. All evil. We could say that without pleasure there could be no pain. Without love, no loss. So maybe, all that is good and pleasant is merely a lure, setting us up for our eventually suffering. Which no living thing can escape. It seems to me that for those who argue the existence of a personified, conscious God.. You have bigger questions to answer than simply, whether or not it exists. Predator and prey define life. It is the hunger that drives survival. So why would a God that is benevolent make it that way? When it could have made the laws of reality in any other way. Ways that simply exclude the possibility of suffering.
I think you are making some assumptions. God can't make something not logically possible as it would not exist. The badness in the world is a lack of good. Which is not a thing god created. For good to exist the possibility of the lack of good must also exist even if it never actualizes. God being omnibenevolent in order to bring some goods into existence must also allow the possibilities of lack of those goods or evils. For example love is a good that requires free will which means the possibility of rejection of love. So these attributes don't contradict as maximal good is only possible with the possibility of the lack there of which is evil. Also this argument is for a genetic God but it ties best to the Christian god as other gods have contingent aspects as well. The other parts of the Christian concept of God that are contingent are historical in nature and other historical arguments apply. Personally I prefer my own ontological argument as I think it gets rid of a lot of the confusion and imprecise language. Also I don't think omniscience and omnibenevolence are necessary to the Christian god as they are implied. Good is what the word ought to be like which implies a goal which implies the universe was created with purpose which must come from a mind capable of creating a universe. Omnibenevolence would then mean what got is in agreement with his own will. The Cristian God is best described as the mind of the being of existence. He is existence personified so to speak. If God is the things that actualizes things that exist he would be onipotant as he literally creates all things and omniscient as he would know about all he causes to exist. Also for things to exist but not all possible things there must be a deciding force to the being of existence which we call a mind as that is all we know that can do such a thing. So to say that God is the mind of existence itself is in line with the bible and would have the three attributes to the maximal degree. I think those on the atheist experience lack a full understanding of how these attributes connect and where they come from logically as the mesh on a deeper level
@@rodneymoonga7993 no, God has a corrupt view of reality, of us. There either is no "God", or God is corrupt. Because God, if it exists, created a place where supposed "sin" is even possible. Sin, karma, whatever you want to call it exist because God made it possible. Why would it do that? Not to mention if God is all knowing, then it already ready knows which evils will be committed when, and by whom. So that means there is no free will also. Unless God isn't all knowing, or isn't all powerful? In which case it isn't relevant.
@@adrianbenedictmendoza6818 yeah I know about the demiurge, but that's just kicking the can down the road isn't it? The gnostics still have not answered the question I pose.
this brings me back to when i first left islam at 16 years old, i had also contemplated the existence of god purely from an ontological point of view. unknowingly at the time, i had constructed a reverse-ontological argument for god's existence out of just sitting in my room for hours contemplating (and dissociating lol) and had 2 internal monologues each arguing for and against the possibility of god's existence. basically, i followed the same steps for the ontological argument, but there was a glaring flaw in the first argument "the greatest being that can ever exist"; it being a being requires that it possesses will - and will, at its core, is a process that's made for decision-making. it makes sense that humans and other animals possess a will, as it is a necessity to ensure survival, but the more important takeaway here is this: we do not control our will - it is instead, reliant on pre-existing mechanisms to construct a process that will lead to an outcome, and the force that dictates this mechanism cannot have a will of its own and even if it does, we will still loop back to the same issue, so eventually, the greatest force possible will always be an unwilling unconscious mechanism of chaos, and from that mechanism, it's not necessary anymore for a god to exist, in fact, it is a lot more likely to create hundreds of billions of creatures than a single omnipotent entity (and still, the entity will likely not be able to overpower the fundamental chaotic force, but rather have the highest ability to manipulate everything within it, especially since its own will is dictated by said force) so in conclusion, we would at best have a very powerful deity, but not really omnipotent. also inb4 someone brings this up: supposing it also has the ability to alter the greater force, the fact that it willed that eventually stems from said force, and the new force will still be a byproduct of the same greater force that possesses no will on its own TL;DR: RNG is the real god, and it has no will
I think the flaw in this argument is that you place a divine will in a human box. Humans are in time so therefore our wills are directed by reason because we aren’t in possession of all knowledge and we also make successive decisions. Yet, for a being which is eternal they would be pure will because there would be no preexisting data to reason out. His will would emanate from his nature as the manifestation of it.
also about the personhood argument; it's the weakest of everything said here but i'll still address it: personhood isn't a scale it's a descriptor and our bias for living things skews our perception of it, but when you look at it from an objective cosmic view, the rock is a matter lacking will, and the fish is a matter with will, and a human is a matter with will that has a more complex mechanism... all of them are still regulated by the same fundamental forces
@@hayman5500 these are all scales of being, we say “personhood” as the tick mark of where we are in the scale of being, yet there are things that lay beyond “personhood” which have more participation is being. To negate a will to a creator is to say we have more participation in being then he does and that’s incoherent.
You heard it here folk, being dead doesnt exist because its a negative definition, you cant die, its just another level of the same thing, having personhood
That’s not a negative descriptor. It’s a quality. “Not dead” is not a descriptor. I don’t know if it’s alive, has the capability of being alive or what have you.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Dead is a "quality" but Personhood isn't, arbitrarily exempting it from this specific situation somehow, how convenient! Now let me simply rebuke by saying personhood is a "quality" not a descriptor creating another paradox and showing how arbitrary this logic can be
@@ApoLk_ dead is a quality because it is a state. Personhood is also a quality because it is a state of possessing the necessary preconditions for personhood. Something not being water isn’t a quality, however, if we saying something has three oxygen molecules we are technically saying it isn’t water but we’re saying it isn’t water by describing what it actually is. The logic isn’t arbitrary you just don’t understand it.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Dead is literally defined by something *not being alive* , if negative descriptors are invalid, so is the concept of being dead/unborn as we know since they would both describe something that is INDEED alive, just less so. I guess my grandma is alive and also has personhood right now, just not as much as me lol I wonder why I'm not understanding the concept of the living death, its so simple! No personhood and let's say 0.00001 are both desiring personhood, in other words, zero personhood personhood!
@@ApoLk_ that’s actually a incorrect definition because a rock is not alive yet we wouldn’t say the rock is dead. not being alive is a state of existence. Saying something is dead is affirming it did have life at least at one point so by saying it’s dead is affirming something But if I just say something is Not alive, that doesn’t narrow much down for me because I could ask was it ever alive, is it inanimate, is it purely conceptual etc etc ad Infinitum
Glad to see you in my feed good sir!! I love topics like this. Its why my mind thinks so many things when someone asks a "simple" question like, "Do you believe in God?"
Bro and negative descriptors do describe things. The state of not being something is still a state. A descriptor tag the qualities of something, and something not being something is still a description. All things aside, I love the video dude, this was awesome. A few things I don't agree with, by my comments, but this is fire dude.
If you can go on for infinity without describing anything it's not a descriptor. A descriptors function is to describe obviously and if you can speak ad infinitum without doing that then it doesn't work
@@Esch-a-ton3There are an infinite amount of things that are bumpy, since bumpy is a thing of relativity/comparison. Descriptors don't describe the essence of a thing, but are used together to give an idea of what said thing is. A negative descriptor does just this, by giving an idea of what it is, by identifying what it is not. Descriptions point out key qualities of a thing, and I would argue that stating what something is not, gives someone a better idea of what a thing is. For example, this door, is not that door. What makes this door different from that door? it isn't that door. It sounds goofy, but that is a description of a quality it holds, and all descriptions serve to help differentiate and identify things. If saying that this door is not that door successfully conveys the idea that there is a difference between the two doors, even as small as just not being eachother, then a description has been achieved.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Also everything can go on for infinity for describing anything speficic. For example, has vents, rounded at some edges, has gears, can move, has lettering on it, has multiple removable parts; Like I just described my space heater 🤣 But that same description can apply to a microwave, a car, a warehouse, etc. Descriptions are very context dependent, and without context, all descriptors, regardless of how percise, can be applicable to anything, because there isn't a set way that things can be seen. It's like the elephant allegory, with the wisemen touching the elephant and describing it, they're all touching the same thing, but a different world view leads them to percieving and understanding it differently, and it's only once the lights are on (The context) that the descriptions actually have a general acceptance.
The idea that God must inherently possess the same attributes as you mention has contradictions and issues. Imagine a scenario with a developer who designs a simulation, the developer would not be deemed a god entirely by virtue of creating the simulation. There is no inherent requirement that the creator of any existence must be the highest order possible. Even farther, the universe itself is far from perfect anyway. Issues within fundamental aspects of physics show this imperfection. For example, the contradiction between quantum physics and classical physics poses considerable challenges. While each system works within its region, they appear non-cooperative when compared. An example is the dual nature of photons, which act with both particle and wave like properties. An apparent *logical* contradiction that still functions in practice. Even if we were to say if God is perfect, the attribute of person-hood and of any other object would be contradictory. Humans aren't even perfect either, so why would our attributes be chosen?
A developer and God are not analogous because using a developer just kicks the can down the road. We aren’t talking about a developer here. However, if we were, all characteristics of the simulation would still indeed come from the developer. There are no imperfections between quantum physics and traditional physics. If there were physics would not give us a harmonious reality nor would it be something we could study because it would be inconsistent. Rather, there are ways physics behave at a quantum level and a traditional level which are different yet this difference doesn’t represent an imperfection but rather something we just don’t understand. I could look at a trigonometry question and answer, not understand it but I couldn’t say trigonometry was an inperfect system just because I didn’t understand it. Based off the fact that we can harness quantum physics reliably like in the case of quantum computing proves it is a perfect system. In regards to human imperfections, this argument doesn’t posit that humans are perfect beings. However, your awareness of imperfections in humans shows us that you do indeed know of a perfect being because how would you know of an imperfect being if you didn’t know what perfection was? Imperfection would just be the status quo and there would be no distinction between perfection and imperfection because perfection would not exist. However, that’s not the case. But if perfection exists, point to it in the material world. We can’t do it. We experience perfection because we have knowledge of it yet can’t point to it because it is intuitive and transcendental.
The idea of perfection does not necessarily mean that it exists, we can imagine a perfect chair, that has The absolute most quality of 'chairness' as the ideal chair we usually think of when we think chair. That does not mean that this chair exists, we can imagine it, but could it ever be conceptualized? Would we ever know it when we see it? Would it even be possible to exist? And the idea that personhood is the quality that leads to perfection is also anthropocentric, if God conceptualized as the most person person, shouldn't he also be conceptualized as the most monkey monkey? The perfect monkey must exist, the perfect cat, the perfect alien, can God simultaneously be all of these things? Does embodiment if the perfect qualities of these other things detract from personhood? Or does the scale simply stop at personhood arbitrarily because we believe that we're the center of this unfathomable universe?
thanks for this video bro. This thought popped up in my head some time ago and I've spent some time pondering whether it's heretical or something. You explained it in much more understandable way than I was explaining it to myself
Proof is a mathematical concept that occurs when one shows that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the outcome. As such, anything can be proven depending on the first stated assumptions. And therefore, not every proof is true. This is why proofs need to be caroborated with reality in order to find out if something is true - being true is defined as that which is in accordance with reality. And so when searching for truth (that which is in accordance with reality) we have many inherent biases which effect our judgements. In order to combat these, we do not look for evidence to support our assumptions. We look for evidence against them. Go back to school and pay attention this time.
Perfection. Science is the process of deciding which of the infinitely many axiomatic proof systems corresponds with measurements of reality well enough to predict future measurements.
Plato had a similar argument in his "Theory of Forms," but if I remember right, it failed. An idea that a shape must have a perfect form somewhere out there in the chaos reality, and we are only privy to a lesser image (to simplify it). I know you said, "Our reality functions under the laws of logic." Yet, under logic fails to justify events, and we're left struggling between what is fowl and what is fair. The two seem to alternate constantly. If a planet explodes, that is fulfilling a series of events, and that is fair until we're the ones living on it. This idea comes from my imagination, which begs the question of being logical at all. So, if I imagine a possibility that could exist, how can it be deemed logical and true?
"There's no rule stating a fake can't surpass the original!" Edit: BTW, brother, thank you for explaining this so succinctly. I've always felt this intuitively but was doubtful words could do it justice. You proved they can come close. God Speed.
"...we know god is a person" We do? What kind of statement is that? Human imagination is a powerful thing, but what's lacking from this explanation like in so many others is any hard evidence. And there isn't any that's why it can't be demonstrated or proven. This is just another word salad, nothing more or less. You cannot philosophize god into existence. William "Lame" Craig is the best known proponent of this kind of skewed logic, and he's completely wrong too.
One thing that I live by is to prioritize living my life to the fullest because with experience of trying to understand a higher power than me, I realized that it was completely absurd and a waste of time. If we were supposed to understand a power greater than us on earth we would’ve been figured it out, go into the real world and interact with yourself and others that are in your realm.
If God exists then where was God before there was any existence - that is before creation? In reality God does not exist since God made existence. The interesting question then becomes how does God enter into and relate to His creation? We then come to the Logos and to John 1 and to Philo of Alexandria and others. This is why the Trinity is so important and central.
Yes God does not exist, to exist means to be in a body or have tension in the X chromosomes, hence x-is-tense/existence. To exist is to be inferior to where God is
God is both Eternal and Omnipresent, he exists everywhere and everywhen, prior to creation (time is part of creation), God simply existed everywhere, but without location, since locations didn't exist
There is an easier way to prove God's existence: The term "God" is simply a title. It indicates the being the speaker believes is worthy of worship (Example: "My God is Jesus", "My God is the sun", "My God is [insert random idolatry]") Christians believe that "Existence" is worthy of worship. Therefore, the God of the Christians is Existence. Does "Existence" exists? It must by definition. Conclusion: God exists because He must by definition. Now, since Existence encompasses all things, it must encompass Conciousness itself, making it therefore, at least in some way, concious. At this point, one can still be an Atheist. All he has to do, is reject Premise One and say: "But I don't hold Existence to be worthy of my warship". Ok, fair enough. Then what is worthy of worship. You could say: "The Universe", or "Me", or even "Nothing", but everything, even "nothing", is part of Existence. Non Existence is not "Nothing". The Void of Space is "Nothing", yet it still exists. Non-Existence is the logical impossibility, which cannot be worshiped because it cannot even be thought. But since anything you choose to worship must exist, it is contained in Existence, and therefore, through whatever you worship, you are actually worshiping Existence, or at least a part of it. At this point, you are forced to accept the Christian God. Your only way out, is by escaping Logic. You reject God, knowing full well He is God, and go against Him in a lost battle, knowing it's a lost battle, just out of spite, with no real alternatives to Him. That is literally the fall of Lucifer. This is Damnation, and nothing can save you from such a radically stupid choice.
Main issue: The entity is not necessary because our very concept of "being" is as made up as math. The concept of "a first positive integer" in math is required only for maths sake. The concept of the greatest eternal being and whatever else you wanna add is just necessary for the set of "beings" sake. Both are abstractions, imaginaries, tools to aid us to define and understand things on reality. They might or might not be applicable to it. You are lucky this wasn't your own argument and that we aren't on 4chan.
My problem with this argument is simply the fact that the definition of God being proposed as "The greatest being/thing conceivable, that which no greater being can be conceived" is not a very useful definition logically. "Greatness" can mean many things depending on the context in which it is used. It is true that a scale of comparison is implicit in the word "greatness", but what is it that's actually being compared? "Thingness"? "Beingness"? Can a thing that is a thing be more of a thing than another thing? What makes a thing is the attribute of being distinguishable by that which perceives it. What makes a being is the attribute of simply existing. These attributes are binary, a thing is either a thing or it is not, a being is a being only if it exists. Therefore, the idea of "the geatest thing/being concievable" is essentially meaningless unless attributes are introduced to the argument that can actually be compared on a scale with actual magnitudes not just a simple binary. I believe that whether there is something that fits the bill of "God" or not, its existence has no obligation to be provable through logic or any other observable consequent of this universe. I think this argument is kind of like a rudimentary precursor to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but just because the existence of one thing necessitates the existence of something which supports that thing's existence and so on and so forth doesn't mean we should arbitrarily label and define that phenomenon whichsoever way we choose and pretend that we know what it truly is, which is exactly what we do when we use the word "God" in the first place, IMO. I'm quite tired, so hopefully all of that made sense.
Just because you can conceive of a something doesn’t mean it actually exists or that it’s even possible that it exists. You’re saying that it’s possible as if “possibility” isn’t a claim in of itself that requires evidence and proof.
I just think creating a scale of personhood and assigning fish to be before a dog just so god can be at the top is the same as creating a scale of sweetness, putting rotting flesh before a cake and saying that God definetly tastes the sweetest
@@Esch-a-ton3 Math is abstract thinking. Math is not real as we know, but we use it to cuantify basing it in special units as meters to understand and predict the natural or social things. It doesnt exists as a bigger thing or something trascendent. If some things are similar to a mathematical concept its because we use to understand that things or maybe is a coincidence.
@@Esch-a-ton3 There are reasons, we model things and our mind evolve to find patrons, inclusive in things that doesnt have one. The maths are pure abstract thinking. Thats the reason why we can create various models of a same thing in different areas of maths, as walrasian microeconomics, that use caluculus and there are models or problems that is concenient using topology. The same in physics. We use the math as a hammer to fix a thing. The hammer itself doesnt fix a thing, but if it use it by the human it would. You are confusing the possibility of using it as a very good descriptor of reality with the math itself, that doesnt follow the logic of the real world and have more than one logic. In problems of linear programming you have to eliminate all negative numbers because it doesnt have any meaning in reality.
@@Esch-a-ton3 As useful as you see it, math is something that we apply for that reason. Math it doesnt communicate anything about reality. We study the reality and use units and mathematical concepts to create a model of that reality. Is very obvious when you think in the ways you can create other algebraic structures when 1+1=3 or the use of differential equations in many sciences but the use of knot theory isnt so popular.
my biggest problem with this argument is that it asserts truths that are not objectively true there is no such thing as good great or bad, ancient egyptians worshiped cats but i don't think many people today would say cats are greater than humans same thing goes with morality which im sure your familiar with there is no objective right or wrong people agree and disagree on morality all the time even in christianity
also the "greatest being" definition of god sucks. my Sluggoth diety is greater than all conceivable beings, and being inconceivable it projects lesser illusions of conceivable gods to lure religious people into its inconceivable infinite dimensional hyper stomach.
Somehow you've managed to evade hearing the level of misanthropy spouted out by animal lovers. Cat people especially worship animals above humans. Elevating the former while relegating the latter sounds normal or completely reasonable in their opinion. I've accepted Cat people don't yet realize what they're suggesting when proudly declaring cats are superior companions and creatures by themselves juxtaposed to humans. Subjective experiences forming closed-minded opinions remain the same regardless of time period. Humans today who worship cats still openly humanize animals while simultaneously dehumanizing if not despising human beings. Once you're inside their spaces; you'll hear their actual opinions devaluing people.
Morality is a logical extension of God. And they are using greater and greatest in a different context. They mean the maximal of a property. It's not great as in something good.
One of the problems about recognizing divine process is that the formula requires self-initiation into such discovery. Which means nobody can prove god to you because the key unlocking factor requires your own embrace. The whole argument of atheists saying show me proof show me proof is a lost cause. If they don’t seek it themselves, they will not see it.
I disagree on the idea that we can measure if something is “perfect” or not, these are human concepts, the universe doesn’t think, things just are, they can’t be qualified (not a native English speaker)
Correct. We can not, but if we can conceive of it, then it is possible. And if it’s possible, it exists. That’s what this argument shows. Notice how it isn’t whether we do or do not conceive it, it’s whether we can. My strongest counter argument (even though I am a Christian) is that this being can’t be conceived. Because the greatest thing would be beyond our conceivability. (But because it is maximally personal, it must be conceivable so…)
isn't perfection a subjective thing ? like you can't say something is perfect in every sense because it changes from person to person and something that is everything can't be perfect and unperfect at the same time (perfection is in the mind its not an objective thing (things either exist or they don't there isn't any "good" or "bad" inherently , thus there is no "perfect" thing. and because of that its not personal, you can't define personhood as a result from perfect because it doesn't exist) also negative attributes are equal to real attributes in the sense that in both you need an infinite of them to describe a specific thing . (just with the negative ones is the "bigger infinite" (because you have to rule out all the possibilities instead of specifying it ) idk where im getting here its just my shower thoughts im not here to argue or anything im probably dum tho and misunderstood something
The true god is beyond greatness, because he is beyond this reality or the logic itself. He his better than perfect and he's name is Nak%zori$#. I know that because someone told me. There's no argument against that.
The mention of perfection is brought out of nowhere with nothing to back it up. Up till that point you made logical and reasonable sense. Why must god be perfect? Why can god not be imperfect?
I still dont see how being able to imagine something that is the greatest thing in existence proves that its real. We can imagine all sorts of concepts we can imagine pretty much everything
Exactly that’s the point. If we can imagine it it logically exists just as a square or a circle would. However, if this thing is actually the greatest existing in the conceptual world, it also would exist in the actual world
> Anselm : a perfect being has to exist because that is the attribute of a perfect being > why ? > A: because that's how a perfect being would be > why ? > A: because a perfect being would have to exist first before it could be perfect, it is a necessary prerequisite > how do you know that a perfect being exists ? > A: because that's what a perfect being would do circularity at it's finest : perfect being has to exist because it has to exist because it has to exist ♾♾♾
The only valid argument is the transcendental argument for god. The ontological argument fails at multiple points, for example, one can refute it using its own argument: "Can you imagine a world where God doesn't exist? If yes, God can't exist in any world, since that would imply God exists in every possible world." See how it begs the question of whether one's imagination has access to the ontological?
I disagree. It's not begging the question, it's a tautology. If I say "either this ball is green or of any other colour", this is obviously correct in every scenario, but it's not begging the question, it's true because the concept itself implies it is. Likewise, we can't conceive of, say, a world where existence doesn't exist because existence is a concept that proves itself. Thinking of a world where there are 0 properties at all would only lead to us thinking that this world doesn't exist, so existence is always necessary
But it actually proves one’s mind has access to the ontological because it can fathom the being. And since it can conceive it and there’s no logical contradiction, it must exists. Its existence IS existence.
Even if existence is encoded in the concept of God that doesn’t entail He actually exists - at best it implies a trivial conditional, namely, if God exists He exists necessarily. But that’s as empty as saying “if P then P” since necisdity is constitutive of the concept of God. It’s still an open question as to whether P is true categorically. You can try to plug-in some logical objects (conceivability, modality, higher-order predication, etc) to deduce the categorical premise God exists but such logical objects will function relative to the concept which entails its truth-conditions, but that’s just to say any function you plug-in for that deduction will beg the question. So, necessarily, all ontological arguments for Gods existence per the concept will either be trivial or question-begging.
@@Esch-a-ton3 How do you respond to "the ontological argument for the non-existence of God"? Premise 1: If God exists in one conceivable world, he must exist in all conceivable worlds. Premise 2: It is conceivable that God doesn't exist Conclusion by modus tollens: God does not exist in any conceivable world.
A table in a dream is made of the dreamer. A dreamer, dreaming within a dream is still the dreamer. A dream character is seemingly seperate from the dreamer, but is actually the dreamer. Both seemingly independent and having free will. Both preforming actions known to the dreamer, but ignorant of the dream.
1. Imagine the greatest being conceivable 2. If he were contingent on something, he wouldn't be the greatest being conceivable 3. So, he would have to be contingent on nothing 4. Thus, God exists The conclusion isn't supported by the premises. It's true that if the greatest being conceivable existed, he would have to be contingent on nothing. That doesn’t prove its existence.
I would love to meet everyone’s objections with a response but I’m getting lost in the comments! I invite you to hit me up on x.com/Eschaton369 to have a conversation!
God is outside of existence. Your idea that God is existence is heterodox it pantheism
@@santiagovega2485obviously God isn’t existence because then he is caused. If that’s what you interpreted then that’s not what I meant.
@@santiagovega2485 by is existence, I mean it in a thomistic sense, in that God is what holds existence together by being the ground of existence, not that everything is God.
But for existence to be impossible to be created out of nothing how does god's existence not fall into the same paradox you explain in the video?
@@nameforprofile603 because God is beyond creation in the way that his very being is purely act, not actualized by anything else. Creation is not pure act, and only actualized through God.
This is literally the ancestor of all powerscaler arguments 💀
What?
Goku Vs Superman?
Nah. Goku Vs God.
Always the case fr @@LuiKang043
@@LuiKang043 alien x goes brrrrrrr
@@davidarvingumazon5024The being so based nothing else could be more based. (The greatest thing conceivable in which no greater thing can be conceived.)
Bro went through all of that when he could simply say "Trust me bro"
Bro every Movie you ever watched was about Satan
And he is also every character
@@Uncanny_Mountain Bro some people watch the movies playing in their heads so much they believe in fucking fictional characters.
@@OceanusHeliosan insult is not an argument just an acknowledgment that you don't have one
@@OceanusHelios Who are you talking to right now? The virtual is not a similar fictional world? It is objective? Tangible? can you put it in a lab?
I've got three main objections/questions:
1) Greatness is undefined/needs to be interpreted as potential by the "cause-effect" law that was used, thus closer to excellence than perfection:
To unpack this, what I understand the "cause-effect" law to be is that "an effect can't go further than the very potential its cause held". Because I'm talking about potential, and because this proof relies on that single logic line, God would then be, encompass, or hold the potential of all that can be (conceived). When talking about feats, this is not perfection because perfection has not been proved to be possible, but rather excellence: taking that feat to its greatest possible limit. Still, the idea of God being what can be (conceived) also has darker tones to it: If all that can be is taken as a future possibility, temporal by nature, God is constantly shrinking infinitely fast as possibilities become impossibilities. God wouldn't be able to out-trascend time because our basic logic is built upon the assumption of time, and because we cannot conceive anything outside of it (it is unconceivable)
2) If Greatness is thought of as the most extreme side of a scale, like "personhood", this implies:
2.1) that God relies on the concept of "personhood" and therefore depends on it (there may be a way to dodge this tho);
2.2) there COULD be something that is at the lower point of the scale, contrary to what you say. The lowest conceivable thing on the scale if you will. Which, then again, can't be proved false, similarly to how the Greatest (conceivable) thing on the scale couldn't. This is NECESSARY because if something which is the Greatest is not the only thing on that scale, there will always be some other extreme to the scale. Any possible logic way to organize such a scale, by applying it to everything that can be, implies putting something at the bottom. Yes, perhaps a Pepsi is not human, but if we are to say a dog is more human than a Pepsi then we must find a set of criteria (quantifiable and ideally continuous) that says WHAT is more human than other. We can't say "if you check all these boxes you're as human as you'll get" either, because this means God is not greater than us in that aspect which should not happen, so its not a category of things as much as getting somewhere (that's why the criteria are ideally continuous). By implying "personhood" is not a category, not a set of things, but a scale, you imply there's a top (God) and a bottom (???). And if by property of the quality of "bottomhood", God is also the bottom, then God is contradictory and this argument dies from the get-go.
2.3) That last part can be reverted if instead of using scales you use categories, and God is not the greatest at everything, but simply holds the potential for all that can be, and everything emanates from Him. But that's not Ontological, that's Avicenna's Necessary Existence Proof, I think.
2.4) In neither case can God be "good", because that kind of concept has an opposite: evil. Any concept with a clear logical opposite can't be used for this God because this creates a contradiction. Even if it is only a category, God cannot be simultaneously good and evil, at least by logic.
3) "Conceivable". Gödel's Theorem of Incompleteness says: for any consistent mathematical system, there will be true statements that can't be proved. This may look dumb because its math and not logic, but logic systems are practically just math in the sense they have axioms, and statements derived from such axioms. What this theorem indicates is that there will always be a possible thing (a true statement in-math) that cannot be proved by logic (which axioms cannot prove, disprove, or describe). Axioms are unprovable statements too, so we might feel tempted to just add this new statement to our axioms and "complete logic", but what we've made is just another consistent mathematical system, which can be applied to the theorem all the same. There is an INFINITE amount of true, simultaneously unprovable statements. Logic can never be completed.
I am saying "a true statement = a possible thing" because logic does not tell you what IS, it tells you what CAN BE possible. That's why sciences use logic, but are not entirely built upon it and use empirical evidence. In any case, what this means is that:
A) the currently known logic is limited to describe possible things;
B) because our capabilities to conceive things are limited by logic (a circle can never be a square so you can't imagine one), OUR and ANY ability to conceive is limited too;
C) the Greatest Thing Conceivable is limited by our ability to conceive and by logic all the same. There will always be a possible thing that this Greatest Thing Conceivable won't have, because there are an infinite number of unconceivable possible things. This goes back to Time, in the first point: there are possible things outside of time, as nothing would contradict that, but they are unconceivable still.
Overall, I think proving God's existence with logic is completely futile. Any God should be greater than logic anyways.
@@j.s.ospina9861
1) God to the Christian is the most actualized being. You got it right. If you're trying to fully mentally grasp that, good luck. Greatness is behavior, would you agree?
2) I think personhood could be interpreted as personality by the content creator. Maybe not though.
An interesting question entered my noggin. You think God hates non actualized created beings? If so, is that based on your perception of him?
I forgot what your third objection was. Sorry.
I red it again, is it impossible for us to mathematically conceive of an infinitude?
@@Jtalkin_46 Could you explain what you mean by "actualized"? I don't understand
For the third objection, that's actually a great example: we can grasp the concept of infinity, but we can't conceive infinity itself. We can understand the mathematical existence of infinity, as there is nothing logically impossible in its definition (just endless things) and many axioms actually hint at the existence of infinity, but infinity itself is beyond our capacity for conceiving. We can imagine counting 1 or 2 or 3 or 157029, and we can suppose we keep counting "forever", but we don't actually conceive the forever part.
Of course, with normal algebra it is impossible to "prove" infinity. You can never sum enough 1s to get there, or divide something enough to get an infinite amount (without using the concept of infinity somewhere in your reasoning). And when you try to understand infinity under algebra's axioms (as a number you can substract from or add to), algebra breaks. That's why you never divide by 0. Yet, the concept on its own is perfectly useful and logically consistent for other things, like calculus and set theory.
It is logically possible, but yet alien to our logic and imagination.
Basically the reign of possible possibility is infinitely larger than the reign of possible conceivability, which is what our logic can prove. And that infinity already is made of inconceivable possibilities. Any God we can conceive, prove or imagine, even if as great as all that is conceivable, is infinitely small against true possibility.
@@j.s.ospina9861 As opposed to the idea of something being potential, according to Anselm, the trinity is completely actual. He has no "would-be" in terms of power and morality, he just is.
Yet we have a concept of infinity, so someone has imagined that. Arguably, if what you say is true, the Trinity is the only one who completely understands the concept. How we understand it is through divine revelation.
@@j.s.ospina9861 We don't need a God we can conceive of based on our opinion of who/what is best. We need a God who's actually the best. What God has defined himself as.
0. Good points, and thank you for getting me to think about this further.
1. Greatness appears to be a linguistic bridge to meaning degree of completeness. To understand Up, look Down at "lesser" beings, such as the animals. Even they have varying degrees of "completeness" in regards to what a being could be. Be it, qualities, emotions, capability for action, intellect, intelligence, etc. The idea is that we did not create ourselves (you nor I have creative power beside procreation which is not the same) therefore we are an Effect. Simply there has to be a greater Cause to our Effect. Additionally, a creator would naturally be a person of higher degree out of our bounds of conception, just as we exist out of the bounds of animal conception.
2.1 Don't think a God would depend on this notion, but would have left it conceivable as a trace.
2.2 Humanity, personhood, etc. are not in themselves abstractions and the lowest form of life is probably plant life as they exist basically like computers.
2.3 That has to break apart with the simple Cause and Effect principle. Another thought is, if God wills all "things" into creation, then he would have all ability but may not race to do everything first. Like you create man, then man thinks using the brain you gave him, and he thinks about something you haven't yet. Still within your ability but might not use it quicker for some reason.
2.4 You say can't be but anyone with autonomy can choose to be Good or Evil by their actions, not what they could do and don't. That being said the thoughts involved with adding ingredient Evil have yet to be revealed. Probably had to happen for some reason, unless God isn't the only God and there were some rules that pre-existed.
Okay I'm getting tired need to break here. Thanks again.
Just because we can imagine an abstract “perfect chair” doesn’t actually define any of its properties or have to actually exist to be imagined.
Okay
exactly that's what I'm saying
That's because it's a chair. A contingent thing. There are lots of things that we define that must exist. For one logic itself. It's less that we are defining something into existence but that we are looking at all possibilities and discovering that when a thing has these properties it must exist. I don't need a knowledge of the world. I can define a infinite amount of things and look at the world to see that some of those things exist and recognize that some of them must exist. Like truth existence maths and logic
@@mitslev4043 Well said. There are truths and then there are necessary truths. I learned that from reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy. You can imagine a tree growing tigers instead of fruits, but you can't imagine 0 being equal to 1.
Right. It reminds me of Plato's Forms. We have no real proof of the forms, just Plato's argument that us learning things is just us remembering the forms. It's a cool, interesting idea, but it's totally unfalsifiable. The fact that we're supposed to be impressed by the ontological argument is an insult. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes 🤷
And then, Immanuel Kant came in with his "Critique of Pure Reason" and annihilated ontological arguments.
"Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations in it. Logically, it is merely the copula of a judgment." -Kant
Kant has been responded to SEVERAL times.
Charles Hartshorne, influenced by process philosophy, argued that Kant misunderstood what the ontological argument was trying to accomplish. Hartshorne suggested that the argument is not claiming existence as a predicate in the conventional sense but is rather showing that the concept of God entails God’s existence because God’s essence includes necessary existence. In this view, Kant’s objection is sidestepped because the argument doesn’t treat existence as a contingent attribute but as an essential and necessary part of the concept of God.
@@Esch-a-ton3 And being responded to, especially in a time of impossibility for rebuttals, doesn't automatically mean an overturning of his argument.
Kant's argument remains meritable and trumps Harthshorne's response, even centuries after his passing.
Kant's critique centers on the idea that ontological arguments are problematic because they involve a kind of circular reasoning or tautology. This means that the ontological argument doesn't provide a genuine proof of God's existence but rather merely repeats the same definition twice, especially since it presupposes what it aims to prove.
@@Esch-a-ton3 The sad thing is, that even centuries after his passing, Harthshorne's response has contributed no actual substance to the argument, and remains especially exactly the same as those who proposed the ontological argument, whether it be Anselm or Descartes.
In a sense, he ironically repeated the definition provided for by the predecessors, the definition of which, is based on a logic founded on a mere repetition of a definition in of itself.
@@sarmientomiko98 Well-argued!
Bro uses smash footage in the argument 💀
When?
And Donkey Kong soundtrack🔥
Bro, that's like the conclusion of 4 years of my own reading and contemplating, - which I've been struggling to share with others through words - in like ten minutes. You know, this "this random media expressed my most precious thoughts better, than I do" feeling, impressed.
Same here man, throughout this video the only thought in my mind was “finally someone gets it! 😂”
Children, read more.
Essentially. 0 is a paradox. the same reason you cant divide 100/0 and it comes up undefined. How do you have nothing and something at the same time? Why do God and math connect? Accountability. Faith in the unknown, finding the variable. That tangible thing that you can look at in real life and decide to change. Sometimes we don't even have to look at the bigger picture. We can look at the smaller one and still gather the same information. It's how you look at things and how you draw conclusions and how it scales up or down. Humans are skeptic by nature because it helps us predict. this is why belief itself is so powerful. As well as faith. Faith is truth. It's the conclusion and the sum of all the information gathered. Though even that is subject to change... As it's all relative to a personal individual experience at different points in space and time...
Hope this helps :)
Edit: This is also why 0 is a placeholder. To having nothing means you had something or want something. Now you have to figure out the means of obtaining it. Which we know. It's easier to get something when you already have something. So what the hardest part of it all? Of life? It's starting. It deciding where to put your, time, energy, and being into.
existence is not a characteristic, the conclusion that god is the epitome of greatness and therefore must exist because greatness exists is as to say there would be a greatest number, but the greatest number is somewhere in infinity and infinity is not a number but a concept, therefore there is no greatest number since it can always be increased by one.
@@BadenPOWER189 Yet 0=1
The greatest issue I have with this argument is that it takes abstract things and thoughts like "perfection" which exist only as concepts in our heads and claims they are necesseary.
My argument for why there is probably no God is that we humans see the world from our human perspective. Human perspective is to humanize inanimate objects, animals, and even imaginary concepts. We see the Universe from our human perspective and this human perspective also being obscured by the limitations of our minds and bodies makes it so we cannot see the Universe as it is. Cold or hot don't exist, it's just intensity of vibrations of the molecules. Colours don't exist, it's just different wavelengths of light. Thunder is not something being upset at us for not adhering to it's will, it's just discharge of energy.
And that's how I see the ontological argument. As trying to figure out things trough purely flawed human prism which sees the world trough mixture of thoughts, feelings and abstractions. In reality there is no thing that is perfect nor thing that is necesseary. These are purelly man made concepts that help us understand that which our mind cannot grasp. And if our mind cannot grasp it there is no way of answering them as long as we don;t go beyond human perspective and overcome our limitations.
What came before the big bang then.
Where did it all really begin? How could anything come from nothing, or come from itself?
@@WHYISEVERYHANDLEALREADYTAKEN9
I don't know. I have no way of knowing that at the moment. My best guess is Universe exists in the state of fluctuation. Turns from one state to another. constantly. So before the big bang there was no nothing but the Universe was simply in a different state from current one.
So, there may be no beginning at all. Or maybe there was. I have no idea and assuming variables to make a pretense of an answer to keep our human minds at ease seems too much like lying to myself. If I want to remain honest with myself I gotta accept that I don't know.
@@WHYISEVERYHANDLEALREADYTAKEN9I can answer these as an atheist myself.
We have several different theoretical models regarding what preceded the Big Bang. None of them are God. We're slowly eliminating models and refining the ones we have through experiment still. Hopefully, we'll narrow it down. My bet is on quantum fields.
Something can't come from nothing, but spacetime itself still has zero point energy, so even in a pure vacuum there isn't nothing. Even the "space" between atoms is filled by the electron cloud. It's unclear if "nothing" has ever existed or is even possible in our universe. Spacetime itself can be thought of as a kind of thing or fabric under general relativity.
The universe isn't created. It can't be. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; that's a fundamental law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, what we call the universe includes spacetime. Causality occurs within time so time itself literally cannot be caused. The universe is therefore uncaused and uncreated, at least according to our current understanding.
Is that weird and counter-intuitive? Maybe to some, but that's what the math and experimental evidence demonstrates.
There exists some being that is necessary, that I would consider to be almost certain.
Yet to describe the character and properties of this being any further takes considerable leaps of faith.
I’m not sure how you can pull “hot and cold” and “colors” don’t exist when you immediately provide examples of distinct structures containing distinct qualities after each assertion. Just because we perceive them in a certain way that may be limited does not mean it doesn’t exist.
All is fine and dandy until you realise that logic is a man-made construct, another tool to describe reality for human consciousness. Existence doesn't have to adhere to human logic, human logic has to adhere to existence.
I'm not a philosopher but it seems to me that ontological argument is just an overcomplicated way to say "things exist thefore God". Which says nothing about properties of God, it's just calling the world we live in a god.
Is the logic of what you just said objectively true, which can apply to me as well, or is it just a construct, non-adherent to existence?
I think you misread the part where I suggested that logic has to adhere to existence. That's your answer.
BTW since previous comment I read a bit and discovered that I accidentaly repeated David Hume's refutation of ontological argument (kinda, sorta).
"Nothing new under the Sun", eh?
@@MrPlastyfikator hoo boy, i think i completely lapsed that part or had a stroke. I should stop engaging in logic and philosophy when it's late. My fault. At least you caught onto what I was arguing against, hypothetically speaking.
No worries, I'm sleep deprived myself and now you got me thinking how to somehow apply logic to non-existing things. Gonna be interesting.
Numbers are a logical system at work outside of man's involvement. Light will travel at the same speed in a vacuum. The ratio of a circle's circumference and diameter are always pi. A rolling rock will always have the same kinetic energy in relation to its potential energy. The list goes on. Therefore logic isn't man made by we are capable of engaging with it and using it.
it's indeed terrorizing how you move from concepts to existence in reality and think it works.
Kinda like predicative models using math lol you can’t just pick the things you like to do that with and ignore others
@@Esch-a-ton3 Really now? These models are worthless if they lack empirical content.
@@Esch-a-ton3Intuitions without concepts are chaotic, conceots without intuitions are empty-Kant
@@GottfriedLeibnizYT so gravity, the multiverse, dark matter are all worthless i suppose.
@@Esch-a-ton3 The theory of gravity has empirical content. The multiverse and dark matter are speculative ideas, so yeah, they are both worthless so far. I'm shocked by your rhetoric. You seem to be clueless after all.
Aquatic ambience goes so hard in the background
The underlying assumptions in this argument are very easy to disprove.
One of the assumptions used is "In order for me to judge greatness, I first need to have a knowledge of the top of the scale of greatness and the top of the scale is the greatest possible thing that could be perceived." The "logical" conclusion being that "the being is necessary" because we "have a scale of greatness by which necessity requires something top be at the top." This is a fallacy of presupposition or a "loaded question".
The reality is our lives are filled with "scales" that do not have an upper most boundary. For example, we can still count things using the number line even though numbers are infinite. There is no greatest number possible which no greater number can be perceived. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that for all concepts, like "greatness", there is an upper most bound to the scale.
Conclusion: The video claims that "god exists by its nature as the greatest thing imaginable." However, even if we measure greatness on a scale, its false to assume a "greatest thing" must exist. The top of the scale of "greatness" does exist. Likewise, god does not exist.
Could you explain the last line? I understand why the conclusion would be that some concepts are do not possess an upper bound but how does that correlate to the non-existence of a god?
I think I understand, what I think your saying is, in a simplified way is that there is no boundary to "greatness" in "reality" it's a constantly moving scale that has no end.
My argument is that there is a boundary, but first I'll talk about some things in your argument that I want to examine:
The example you gave of there being no boundary is math, a kind of system, but made by a man, or multiple men. Which was made with infinite numbers in mind. It was set there by the creator/s of math. A "reality" one or more people made to define parts of the world if not the whole world.
Now this is where things get subjective and I present my argument:
So, I think there is a boundary to greatness, because humans have boundaries in themselves, somebody could help a million people, but at one point in time that person will have to stop to sleep. And even if that person does greatness another day, he or she will have to stop to sleep. And even if they die and another person does greatness, that other person will die at some point, on and on until the heat death or whatever of our planet. Then the final act of "greatness" would have happened. That is the end of "greatness" or what we define it as. A boundary to ourselves, our death, would be boundary to greatness. And what would exist after is creation. Or whatever another advanced species defines it as.
As for a creator, I don't know. But I do know religions strive for morality. The greatest thing. The boundary.
@@waterbottlefilms6563 i understood what you meant finally. ok so, you mean that the greatest possible thing that can be conceived must be reality as that is the greatest possible thing in this reality that we know of. however, my question is that this assumes that the "greatest possible" thing is in the idea of scale, right? if then existence is the greatest thing in the idea of scale and hence forth god; then that means very thing in the known and unknown universe together is god. this implies that we as humans are inherently a portion god no matter how small...?
i thing the idea of "greatest possible" does not necessarily have to be of scale, but instead could be something else. for example, it could be the something beyond "reality" itself. but then again if it is beyond "reality" (assuming reality is the dimension from which we perceive the world logically) then it is not conceivable making contradict the definition of the generic god.
so those that imply that the to obey the definition of the generic god, the god must be existence itself and hence we must be part of god. which means everything material is part of god; hence forth, everything is part of the greatest and at the very least has properties of the greatest?
and assuming that what you said about the greatest being perfect in very aspect possible, it must mean that we and everything else is inherently perfect...? yet, we all know that has to be incorrect if not the standard by which perfection is judge must be illogical. meaning god itself is everything (so omnipresent and greatest conceivable) but also illogical if not then imperfect (which would defy the definition of the generic god)
thus wouldn't this prove god as an illogical being or thing? wouldn't that mean the very idea of judging it by logic is invalid without contradiction of some kind? please explain im so confused...
But there is a concept in math for a greatest number. It's called infinity. In a scale of zero to infinity, if there is something that is infinite, there is no number greater than it. So the question is, can your scale be infinite? If so, is there something that is infinite. The universe is infinite.
@@srossiter81 The counter argument for that that I discovered was that infinity isn't actually a physical, material number but an intangible concept. It simply refers to numbers so large they become insignificant and incomprehensible for us as humans. As numbers this large cannot have a practical effect. A proof of this is that, if infinity is a physical number, what is the number right before infinity? You cannot answer that as the very line at which we stop giving something a number just call it as infinity is not defined or universally agreed upon.
And for the argument of the universe being infinite. The observable universe is currently about 93 billion light years with the size of anything beyond that completely unknown. Of course we can simply call this infinity because the real size of the universe then must be so large it is practically insignificant to us as an observer. However, as the edge of the universe is yet to be found, automatically calling it as boundless cannot be possible as there is no logical proof that the edge of the universe doesn't exists.
Still, this is just my interpretation on the matter. Do you have any perspective by which infinity can be material? Please share ^^
wtf is this title lmao
Clickbait
Ai generated, methinks lol
He uses math to explain god like what u can see math u can’t see god not the same shit 💀 why does god even need to exist the universe works exactly how it would without a god
@@LifesNotHereToSatisfyYouno it doesn't,thats why he exists.He is the necessary being
@@Idk-xr3nu what dude no there is child abuse god sits there and watches no excuses doesn’t matter if ur god that is wrong 😑 why does the universe need a god like the universe is here before us and after us like we’re not that special humans created the idea of a god because they don’t like the feeling of no after life it scares them
The issue with this argument is that it hinges on an assumption of greatness being an objective measurement.
This is only an issue if greatness isn't an objective measurement. (not saying I find it convincing myself, but for different reasons)
Greatness isn’t a good term for it, as the argument was refined that became predicated.
God is the thing that does not require anything else to exist, God is the thing that is not dependent while everything else is dependent on God, since logically something has to be independent of all things. And that’s greatly simplifying the argument
@@TQFMTradingStrategies yea I can see the logic there, I’d agree that there is *something* upon which we are all dependent, that thing being a higher consciousness seems unlikely though. Either way while I respect the epistemic process formed in apologetic arguments like this, at the end of the day though the number of people legitimately swayed by them is most likely near 0 because logical word puzzles don’t have any contact with the experience of people in the actual world
@@indigo3796 I guess I’d need a more specific set of criteria for what greatness entails
@@Swarm561 it’s true most of this stuff is pretty deep down the theological rabbit hole so to say. I’ve always found the argument and it’s evolutions interesting because of my math/physics background. But for most people it’s just arguing for the sake of it lol.
Anyone buying the idea that God is creation is in danger of worshipping the creation instead of the creator.
I create food to eat it, not to be worshipped by it.
Creation does no different, only man does.
God is what is poured into creation. GOD is the glue- the act of creation. Not creation itself as an individual instantiation.
I shit out my ass the food I eat, the shit comes from food, God shit us out from food
@@TheDrackOfSpadesYou don't create,you make food eatable.
@@khrawbryan if you are creation then your flesh becomes food yes? Ok so say you do not create food persay, that does not mean you, a creation are not made of the stuff, your matter may go through all kinds of stages, rotting, fresh, organic, inorganic.
Always changing, always devouring and being devoured by time or tooth it matters not.
Worship is irrelevant in the face of such a universal existance.
Does not matter if one plans to worship or be worshipped, the end result will be the same in time.
So bon apitite.
My problem with the ontological argument is the fact that it heavily relies on objective definitions for subjective concepts. It's not a universally applicable argument since, depending on how "greatness," "goodness," and "badness" are defined, the argument fails. If you were to say that the definitions chosen are the only correct ones, I would simply accuse you of confirmation bias.
"My problem," "I would," *proceeds to make an objective statement about the subjectivity of truth* (self defeating argument)
This is the age old atheist-materialist dilemma. Everything is defined bottom up to the point that the higher things no longer exist. You might as well say you don't exist because your matter can be rearranged at any time. But it isnt. You are still here.
This argument is working on a higher level than you are allowing yourself to engage with. Please try to participate at the proper level of analysis. It does not matter what the definition of a value is when one is discussing the structure of value. It is about the meta level.
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1st 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝. I'm specifically discussing the definitions of concepts that we need to take for granted for the argument to work. Are you saying there's only one way to define 'good'?
I'm not trying to sound smart (I'm not that smart, after all). I just enjoy discussing these topics. I'd be more than pleased to hear more about your worldview.
By the way, I'm not an atheist. Why would I assume a stance on something that can't be proven or disproven? Regarding your point about the atoms in my body being rearranged such that I wouldn't be myself anymore-where did you get that idea? A possibility is enough to invalidate reality? I wasn't saying there are no objective truths. I was saying people don't universally agree on the interpretation of these concepts, so it's wrong to assume that the definition aligned with my beliefs is the true one without any basis.
Although your suggestion is compelling, I fail to see how the argument itself brings up what you're talking about. Are the definitions really that trivial to you?
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1st 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝. I'm specifically discussing the definitions of concepts that we need to take for granted for the argument to work. Are you saying there's only one way to define 'good'?
I'm not trying to sound smart (I'm not that smart, after all). I just enjoy discussing these topics. I'd be more than pleased to hear more about your worldview.
By the way, I'm not an atheist. Why would I assume a stance on something that can't be proven or disproven? Regarding your point about the atoms in my body being rearranged such that I wouldn't be myself anymore-where did you get that idea? A possibility is enough to invalidate reality? I wasn't saying there are no objective truths. I was saying people don't universally agree on the interpretation of these concepts, so it's wrong to assume that the definition aligned with my beliefs is the true one without any basis.
Although your suggestion is compelling, I fail to see how the argument itself brings up what you're talking about. Are the definitions really that trivial to you?
Now that I'm re-reading my first statement, I see why you got that impression. I said "subjective concepts" when I actually meant "concepts with subjective definitions". My fault, it's hard to articulate my thoughts in a foreign language.
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1st "You might as well say you don't exist because your matter can be rearranged at any time. But it isnt. You are still here."
Except when you are 6 feet under.
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1st Bravo! Also, *yoink*, this is too valuable to just read and pass it by.
I am so glad you mentioned God is existence itself. Thats exactly what Bishop Robert Barron taught, and though I'm not catholic (im orthodox) I agree with his definition. God isnt so much the best being there is, he is beyond the concept of being
Glad you enjoyed! I get most of my philosophy/theology from the eastern tradition. I love some systematic theology as well but I think eastern theology covers all the bases.
When He gives His name as "I AM THAT I AM," it's kinda pretty easy to see how that conclusion do be drawn.
@@normanclatcher I agree!
God is existence and
God is beyond the concept of Beeing seem contradictory to me. How can something be the literal a and and be beyond a?
Law of contradiction?
It's either one or another
Does all existence need a cause? Yes/No?
@@ichsehsanders It's complicated. The only thing certain about God is that we cannot and will not ever comprehend him fully.
The axiom only works if you believe that it's true. Your definition of god as "the greatest thing conceivable which no greater thing can be conceived" only works because you're assuming that there is a god because that's what you were taught.
Just like you said imagine a world where there is a god, you can just as easily reverse that and say imagine a world where there is no god. Both can be imagined, so that doesn't make either of them true. The universe can exist with or without a god, or gods.
Thank you I was about to comment the same thing
Exactly, this is just a word salad pseudo-argument that tries to define "god" into existence through wordplay and twisting subjective concepts. You can easily swap "god" out to Krishna and say that therefore, Krishna is proven (or any other omnipotent fictional character you want). Besides, there is no objective "greatness". Human technology is "greater" than dog technology, but dog 4-leggedness is "greater" than human 4-leggedness. "Great" is a vague catch-all term, totally unscientific. What's the exact trait being measured? What's the unit and methodology of measurement? The channel owner can't explain this, because obviously he is not from the field of hard sciences. In the end, it's just mental gymnastics with no empirical basis in reality.
Also, the channel owner sounds like a self-important university freshman eager to "prove" his own faulty preconceptions. I expected better!
@@mydnytdeath he’s not assuming there’s a God, he’s logically concluding the existence of a “greatest conceivable”, which we might happen to call God
@@ghost_of_jah5210Thank you I was about to comment the same thing.
"A god" "gods"
Imagine using these terms when trying to critique any classical theist tradition and believing you know what you're talking about. Praytell, friend, what is "a god"? What are "gods"?
Something tells me you conceive them as people but, like, SUPER powerful. Like Ironman or Superman or something! Is that right?
If this is your conception (and let's be honest, it is), you're a child.
I don't even find the ontological argument particularly compelling as a philosophical argument for God. It's useful as a devotional exercise.
Here before 1million subs. Such a good channel
😂 thanks for the kind words!
@@Esch-a-ton3 great video, but for this argument to hold, the hypothetical realities where God exists have to exist themselves. Think about it, how can a world that doesn’t exist, affect our world that exists.How can a simple idea, affect our world? It’s an imaginary world, not a real world.
Only 997,000 to go! 😂
It's fucking ai bro
4:45 there may be nothing preventing God from existing, but it doesn't mean that one is required to exist.
I'm a devout believer but man I hate the onotlogical argument. It's one of the worst arguments for anything I've ever heard.
It’s actually entirely based
Im not a believer but I agree.
I'm devout and could not disagree more.
from the arguments ive seen so far in this video, 1, god is either the string in string theory or space itself, or 2, they are not seeking to prove a god, they are seeking to prove a god-shaped concept.
Space/the Universe could be god because it is all knowing(contains all information), all powerful (nothing would exist without it), perfect(as it is all that exists, therefore nothing can be better), but not personal, as to be personal implies capacity to think/have thoughts, not just "contain" them, same thing as all knowing.
secondly, this argument functions on a fundamental misdefinition of the question. just because it fits the criteria which approximately fit the characteristics of God does not mean it is God. they are stuffing the concept of the universe into a vaguely God-shaped box.
@@owenswabi Nope, it's re. Tarded.
I'm happy seeing how people are following mixture of Hinduism(advaita vedanta) and buddhism without even realizing it.
care to elaborate?
And yet you've missed the point. No one is following a mixture of different religions, all religions follow the same principle of existence. Siddhartha Gautama is literally just Jesus, and vice versa.
We just tell different stories for different cultures to understand and reach divine, righteous knowledge, and grow a peaceful soul
@@HavvelMusic You have definitely never read bible or Buddhist scriptures.
Unlike jesus, buddha is not god, in fact there is no god in buddhism and everyone can become buddha so buddha is not special entity.
Unlike Christianity, you don't go to hellll for eternity for your beliefs in Hinduism and buddhism.
Please never compare Indian & Chinese religions to abrahamic ones ever again.
Advaita Vedanta (Monism) and Buddhism are VERY different.
And this argument is purely Abrahamic. Not everything deep has to have Orientalist flair.
Every 4 years someone else on TH-cam explains the ontological argument. (I get a huge smile on my face.)
Indeed
And still, it never "proves" anything. This argument literally only exists to reaffirm presupposed beliefs lmao
two things i would like to point out:
1) god (the ultimate thing) is not abstract. it is pure existence.
2) what is "personhood" really? can we view this idea outside of antrhopocentrism? why do we make distinction between a rock and a human? what is the logical mechanism in this categorization or ranking of being?
one may say that pure existence is abstract, which it is without knowing exactly what it is. how do we know/can we know or perfectly conceive this pure existence?
[this is my very crude and fractured understanding but]
1. what is personhood?
personhood by definition is the quality of being an individual human. thus, it implies that any quality that can be closer associated with human starting from physical body characteristics to phycological characteristics (sentience and sapience) are human characteristics but not those that make it individual hence forth personhood is just the behaviour and belief, culture as well as personality which makes a human unique to another human, as being a human is
2. Can we view outside of anthropocentrism + where do we make the distinction?
this makes the idea of viewing it in an anthropocentric view as the only option as the very concept of personhood prerequisites the object in question to be human which then can be isolated as an individual due to its quirks. this also makes anthropocentrism invalid in the context as if personhood was to be a numeric scale or any scale of relativity, all objects/matter/life/ will inherently be equal to 0 in the scale of personhood excluding human and only a human will have any 'value' of personhood in the scale of personhood; if not, a logical contradiction is made as the definition has been altered.
3. What is the logical mechanism in this categorising of being? (i call the logical mechanism the standard which you'll get if u read i hope?)
now, this gets messy. so lets. just assume for the sake of trying to explain my thoughts that the most logical mechanism of "ranking" is reference. we compare to things relative to each other on a specific standard then make judgement on which is greater. this implies to rank anything we need the highest possible object as reference as that is how logic operates: by comparisons.
from what i said on 2, this means god will have a 'value' of 0 in the scale of personhood which means it has a lack of perfection of personhood. then will come to the question of what defines perfection. perfection is the state or quality of being perfect, a person or thing considered to be perfect, the action or process of improving something until it is faultless. in other words, perfection is the act of being perfect. then what is perfect? having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. as the generic definition of god goes "the greatest thing conceivable for which no greater thing can be conceived"; the interpretation of in the video of which is that god must be something that has achieved perfection in all aspects of existence.
now this being or thing that is the maximal perfection of every aspect of existence is our scale by which we compare all other things and beings to rank by the relativeness of it to the top. now, u must see the logical paradox here: if a being or thing that is perfect in every aspect exists then they themselves cannot be existence as a whole as that would mean everything is perfection intrinsically which mean everything is equally god and not god, as by the generic definition of god: god is the greatest possible thing conceivable. (if the greatest possible thing is all then it is everywhere which means there is noway to differentiate it from other things thus, making it logically inconceivable as for conceive something is to compare it.) though, this is the only comprehendible way in which something can be omnipresent (random idea not really related to the topic ikik).
does this disprove the existence of the very top which could be used as the standard of categorisation or a scale? no. it just implies that the categorisation if universal and not interfered by human biases must not be logical. it must transcend or be in some way inferior to the very foundations that make up the concept of logic by which we, as humans perceive our reality. (i brought up the idea of inferiority as there is equal proof of standard being both inferior or transcending the very foundations of logic making it inconceivable).
and as the standard, god (i know im using the 2 as the same thing) to be the greatest it must not be conceivable, then that means that the only logical way for it to be universally valid; the top, the perfection of all aspects, the standard, god should be illogical to be logically applicable to existence. also if this very greatest thing cannot be conceived it goes against what the generic definition of god is. which mean the generic god must either be inferior to the standard god, does not exists, or our definition of a generic god is inherently flawed.
so as you can see, categorisation needs a reference point to be compared as or else categorisation is impossible. and to fulfil that we need either the highest possible or the lowest possible for the scale of categorisation and ranking to be the most accurate and universally applicable. however in case of the highest possible being or thing, it cannot be existence itself but if it is logical; it will contradict itself.
hence, the logical mechanisms of categorisation and ranking is a logical paradox whose only solution (i know of) is an illogical standard.
note: yes the lowest possible was not mentioned cause i have no idea what that is and im just a guy sleep deprived at 1am in rainy ass night whose coffee supply just vanished : (
Very interesting thoughts about the applicability of comparison/logic when contemplating infinite states@@mr.derpysChannel
I had a very rich college career. I ended up with degrees in Molecular Biology, Chemistry, and Machine Tool Technology. I was also an Honors Program student and stayed with that program for all five years I went to college. I carried an overload of credits every semester and a max GPA every semester. I studied Art History and it covered a lot of Religious works of art. I studied theater also. I studied all kinds of things and a broad range including foreign languages. I literally wanted to learn all that I could, and I learned a lot.
I also took a course in Philosophy, and out of all of the courses I took this one was the only class that was absolutely nauseating. It was like trying to drive a car while only looking at the mirrors. It was mental masturbation and narcissism about one's own thinking on a scale that made me want to roll my eyes out of my head. There were some interesting discussions, and I tried to maintain my enthusiasm, but it gave diminishing returns the more I dwelled on it.
We covered religion and this god character in philosophy. And of course, my professor presented us with the Ontological Argument. It was beyond stupid. Why does one have to imagine a "being" at all? Why does the universe necessitate a god when the universe doesn't necessitate a god at all? The idea is the biggest self pleasuring and egocentrism possible in any field. Why would mortal brains need to have something such as this to exist at all?
The ontological argument is just essentially the same thing as saying "Look at the trees" and creating a dude most high based on man's own image. Philosophers might need a god to just think "wow the ultimate philosopher ever ever ever in the sky sky sky until I can't even imagine it oh my brain hurts!" It sounds that infantile because it is. We are mortals. We are not created. We die. The Cosmos is trying to kill us at any moment and every moment of the day, and it is only by happenstance that the puddle of water fits the depression it sits in. People need a god because people started from a sperm and an egg and were tiny individuals that are doomed to die.
But needing something doesn't necessitate its existence.
I could argue that Supergirl exists because I imagined it, therfore Supergirl exists and she has the hots for me. It is that dumb. It is that perposterous. And it is that egocentric about the "power" of imagination and the willingness to ignore the obvious and embrace the movie that plays in the head.
I did well in college by not ignoring the obvious and by not watching silly vain movies that play in my head. And it was well worth it to pay attention.
lol wth thats bait
@@elio3985 how is that bait?
@@flufo too stupid
@elio3985 one does not simply read a long and well written comment only to conclude that it's "bait" unless they just want to say something but have nothing to say.
@@HunterNichols-UToob some things are just so stupid you live happier assuming its a joke, specially in the internet
God will do the absolute minimum to expose himself to this reality as not to affect our free will however when you truly search for him he leaves pieces of evidence for that person alone and works through others.
No, he won’t. Tried it, got nothing. Multiple times
@@theunknownatheist3815it is real, but you have to really be observative for it to work
plus, altrough i cannot say for you since i am not you nor know anything about you, I can say that it is indeed possible to figure out God's doing on your life.
Maybe you didn't quite really understand what "hearing God" means or you were looking at the wrong places or simply were not able to see if it was him or not, but he certainly did try to speak to you while you were searching for him.
Not saying it is easy or that you did something wrong, but maybe you just didn't knew how to figure out if it was him or not
@@theunknownatheist3815 its real, but only if you trick yourself into thinking its real.
@@theunknownatheist3815im your position, looking but can’t really “see” or “find”. But trust them, he is literally walking looking down your shoulder as you search, waiting for you to realize
It’s difficult, but I really don’t want to give up on God, whoever it may be.
I swear, if the pastors I asked growing up, showed me this video, when I was a kid. I would still be a believer of Christianity to this day!
Just because something is conceivable doesn't mean it has to exist...
Plus there is nothing that can be more human than a human. Things can be more like Coca Cola or less like Coca Cola, bit nothing can be more Coca Cola than Coca Cola.
But what causes human to be human and Coca Cola to be Coca Cola ? There has to be a conceivable and existing entity to be based off/ reason to exist for another thing to exist
@@sofi-bluestoons7356 I don't get your last sentence but what causes humans to be humans is (depending on what you mean by "causes") a) procreation, b) the latin word "humanus" meaning "earthly" or c) evolutionary biology. For Coca Cola it would be a) Production, b) the name stems as a combination of the coca leaf and the cola nut. c) its invention by John S. Pemberton
Actually, that has nothing to do with the argument. Your examples are all dependent concepts that rely on external factors for definition. Thus, a thing can be more Coca Cola than Coca Cola because what defines Coca Cola can be altered. This isn't even an abstract point, the Coca Cola company has altered the production of their beverage several times.
Ultimately, Coca Cola is defined by the ones acting upon it, who are conscious agents. If these consciousnesses use their agency to alter the tangible properties of ingredients and mixing processes, it will no longer be the same, yet remain Coca Cola.
The ontological argument is specifically about an independent existence that is not internally changed despite the view from external agencies.
@@lucaarmillei1682 you dont say anything logic. HEAR ME DUMBASS GOD by Anselm as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." This means that God's greatness includes all perfections, including existence.If we can conceive of a being that has every perfection, including existence, then this being must exist. Otherwise, we would be able to conceive of something greater-namely, a being that does exist, which contradicts the definition. you scrullhead said that argument presented suggests that just because we can conceive of something (e.g., a perfect island), it doesn't mean it has to exist. This is true for contingent beings or objects but not for a necessarily existing being. you understood that?
@@lucaarmillei1682 waffling
0:02 I’ve been thinking about this my whole life and understand god isn’t a singular thing so it’s nothing and everything at the same time. God is infinite right? Then why bind it to a form? It doesn’t have one, it’s countless and why we emerge from the pool of entangled differences. Not just the small entangles and shares so when we FIND god it’s hard to understand but the part where we are made in its image, we are made of the pieces and by the weights of relativity. We are reflective creatures. Not just like reflecting without anything else but we are what we eat. Like sharing the mind with the potential and that form is just one potential but relatives are just around the corner. So the info we pay attention to is like the info we share with not take. 7 is lucky and divine and all that because it’s directional, the king isn’t a person that takes control but shares his mind and potential with the people, god is the infinite that shares so we can be free. God is the infinite and denial blocks some thoughts and understandings and if we just deny it’s like tearing each other down. Turning the other cheek stops the blind from controlling and the one eyed man is king. Maybe that’s confusing. The king is not of himself because it’s selfish and not of the seven directions. One has to share with the seven directions and not control but share to expand understanding just like with knowledge. The info is out there and we try to listen but we listen while searching so we don’t find the truth but what we seek. When we share with god/everything, it’s like thinking of the differences and sharing the feelings with the info, sharing the body and mind with the soul. I mean, as a baby you come out with not much and the world shares with you to form you. Your knowledge doesn’t come from inside but shared and you listen with your eyes and ears and everything. I think this neuralink and synchron devices may open our natural form into something different and it’s not wrong but we keep getting lost in the differences so expanding the mind in many forms is possible like translation. So from anywhere you can share to another place. It’s expansion not linear or binary but all directions. Reflection shares that we have freedom and will because it’s shared through the pieces. Our body is always free and so is our mind but we bind it up with these strings of differences and confusion. Like identity, you are you but only because you share with the world and universe to be something. The knowledge helps us be one with the infinite but reflection of something so large and growing has us confused like the identity crisis. Don’t deny yourself to become what you feel, listen to your feelings but don’t let them control. It’s like giving your mind over to lies instead of understanding. Does the world control you and your actions or do you reflect on the self and share your will with intelligence? The animals don’t know of good and evil and aren’t burdened by the walls it builds or the judgment it has us feel. It’s nature but when nature reflects it grows in differences like evolution and entangling with chemicals and such being passed on or genes or ideas. We share to become something greater than the selfish. We share back what we listen to.
God* with capital G, and we are made in HIS image not it's
@@Warrior_of_kristus you’re getting hung up on the words lol
Why would it be his? Jesus wasn’t god but someone who shared with the infinite and did not deny so we all have that potential so he is not god itself but our savior for showing us we could change. He showed us the path to accepting and unlocking our potential as well as the rest of the potentials we could share with the infinite. God is not one but the many, its form is not bound but shared and the understanding is the word of god. I always wonder how it’s a he or a she when the shape is infinite but yeah you’re right, it could be that it is male to you. See, all gods we imagine are part of the potential so they aren’t gods but beings with the same potentials. We are not so far from god but nothing is god itself. The reason why nothing is God is because we reflect and see in its image. Through reflection we can escape the limits we place on ourselves. We miss the point Jesus passed and it’s not for a deity in the sky. He shared his life with the seven directions, not just a single entity. He listened and shared hope and showed us we can also be as solid as stone in our faiths as well and not budge. So he taught us to protect ourselves and to change.
oh my it's too much philosophical for me
@@Jacobk-g7rWow I never looked at this this way
@@Kreshura-tm5rbdo you have any questions I can help
Simplify for you?
Saying something can exist or should exist doesn’t mean it does exist, not to mention the subjectivity of “greatest.” Also, the “balance and harmony” argument can’t work because our definition is based on our own human conceptions. I don’t think the universe is balanced, it’s expanding and has a force able end.
That isnt the point of the ontological argument. It merely provides the axiomatic framework for the existence of God. We can then deduce (and should) by inferring from the creation what caused it. The real proof is in learning the repeated proofs that point back to God.
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1st If god can be deduced, faith is meaningless.
@@PSNSMANIACALMIND1stYou can't just assert the existence of something axiomatically. That's completely irrational. Even cogito ergo sum is technically contingent on the observation of the cogito part.
Explain reality then. Explain how existence occurred and is true.
I kinda thought the same thing as soon as he said that. And how the greatest version of this god somehow cares about what I eat on a given day of the week is laughable tbh
This argument is crazy and based
Thanks, man!
it is for real man
Here's my version: I call it the Kalam Ontolological Argument (KOA):
1. The cosmos began to exist
Evidential Support?
-- Guth-Villenkin Theorem
--problem of actual infinites
2. If the cosmos began to exist, then it is possible that it had a cause for its existence
Evidential Support?
--Inductive logic
--Ex nihilo, nihilo fit
--Law of Cause and Effect
3. Therefore, it is possible that the cosmos had a cause for its existence
4. Axioms: The nature of this cause must be timeless, spaceless, maximal in power and knowledge. It must also have agency and will.
5. Equivalence: the cause must be a maximally great being
6. Therefore, it is possible that a maximally great being (MGB) exists
7. Equivalence: This means that an MGB must exist in some possible world (modal logic)
8. If an MGB exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds. Why? Because a being that exists only in one or some possible worlds is less great than a being who exists in all possible worlds.
9. Therefore, an MGB must exist in all possible worlds.
10. Our actual world (cosmos) is a member of the set of possible worlds (cosmoi).
11. Therefore, an MGB (commonly known as God) is real and exists in our actual world.
I am not smart enough to have a rebuttal to this argument, so I ran it through an AI to see what it says about it. Here's an interesting read for you.
The argument presented is a version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) combined with Ontological reasoning. Here are some points where logical fallacies or weaknesses might be identified:
1. **Equivocation Fallacy (Ambiguity):**
- The argument might be guilty of equivocation, where the term "possible" is used ambiguously. In one sense, it might mean "not logically contradictory," but later, it could be implying "plausible or likely." This shift can weaken the argument.
2. **Assumption of Modal Logic (Steps 7-9):**
- The argument heavily relies on modal logic, particularly the concept that if a maximally great being (MGB) exists in one possible world, it must exist in all possible worlds. This step assumes the validity of S5 modal logic (where if something is possibly necessary, then it is necessary). This assumption may not be universally accepted or self-evident.
3. **Leap from Possibility to Actuality (Step 6-9):**
- The argument makes a leap from the possibility of an MGB to its necessity without sufficiently justifying why mere possibility should entail actuality. This is often seen as a major leap in ontological arguments.
4. **Axiomatic Assumptions (Step 4):**
- The nature of the cause as "timeless, spaceless, maximal in power and knowledge, agency, and will" is assumed without sufficient justification. These attributes are traditionally associated with the concept of God but are introduced here without argument.
5. **Circular Reasoning:**
- The argument might be circular if it's assuming what it seeks to prove. For example, it defines the cause as a maximally great being (MGB), which already assumes the conclusion that such a being exists.
6. **False Dichotomy (Implicit):**
- The argument seems to assume that the cosmos either had a cause or it didn’t, with no other possibilities. However, alternative explanations (e.g., a non-traditional cause or no cause in the usual sense) might be ignored.
7. **Actual Infinites and the Cosmos (Step 1):**
- The mention of "the problem of actual infinites" assumes that the cosmos beginning to exist solves this problem. However, some physicists and philosophers argue that actual infinites are not inherently problematic.
8. **Inference from Cosmology (Step 1):**
- The Guth-Vilenkin theorem suggests a beginning of the universe in some models, but it doesn't necessarily support all the metaphysical claims made here. The inference from cosmology to a metaphysical cause might be overstated.
Overall, while this argument is a sophisticated and creative combination of cosmological and ontological reasoning, it does contain some logical leaps and assumptions that may not be universally accepted, and it could be vulnerable to several critiques on logical grounds.
Yeah but you pulled those axioms out your ass, ya dingus. Why a being. Why not an event. Why not a being lacking one of those traits. A hypothetical "greatest being imaginable in all aspects but the capability for lactose tolerance" must exist, as it wouldn't be the "greatest being imaginable in all aspects but the capability for lactose tolerance" if it didn't.
@@kucckumelon2837 i will never read anything purporting to be logical that's written by AI. Your silly little infinite monkey based chinese box cannot even reliably solve basic algebra, and has recently lost a court case for a bunch of lawyers by just making up a nonexistent precident. Stop using that goofy ass thing.
This isn't as good of an argument as you think it is. Around a year ago, I had an interaction in my DM's with a Muslim from Angola who basically made the same argument you made. Turns out that people much smarter than you and I have absolutely defeated the KOA. It took like 5 minutes for me to find videos that did so.
Anselm's argument for why maths fits the definition of god better than any personal being.
It is complete, yet infinite. It is highly complex anf yet has no flaws. We can't necessarily access all of it or understand it all and yet we know it to be perfect.
It doesn't need personhood, since that requires a mind, which is itself a process of thinking and remembering and experiencing. An active process cannot be a part of a perfect and complete being, because then it will never reach its ultimate state, making it forever incomplete.
Yet sadly godel's incompletness theroems show that mathmatical systems can never be entirely 'perfect', still technically a human language :( I'll still let math be my god though
@foswex Well not quite, it means that the human expression of maths can't be complete or access all parts of maths. But I'm a mathematical realist, which means I believe maths exists with or without human description of it.
@@YLLPal I'm with you there 👏
Commenting for algorithm, love this kind of content, will wait for second part
This is the longest “just cuz bro” arguments ive ever heard
I don’t think some of the greatest philosophers of the last millennium would wrestle with a “just cuz” argument. Might be something you’re missing.
@@Esch-a-ton3 pretentious arent you
@@skinisdelicious3365it’s okay to humble yourself. Good for character building.
@@mrshs4332 virtue signaling. Also very humble ahyuck
Very interesting channel and video I got recommended, yet amazing. Keep up the good work!
Very glad you enjoyed!
Ai shit
This one of the greatest videos I've ever seen
the first problem i found (im at 6:32) is your axiom of greatness because it assumes value. In a world without a god that gives some form of abslute meaning to our world and existenze everything is just random and in some way the same, just a phenomenom. By this application value would just be a subjective measurement to find a direction in the endless possibility of available actions. therefore it is not an objective truth and your axiom fails to deliver a deductive reasoning, since while a scale of physical existenz like length is objective, value is not in any way mesurable if not under axioms that we subjectivly or intersubjectivly develop.
I thought of this same thing. We "invent" measurements, scales, categories and names. Things don't intrinsically measure or fit into certain category. They just exist. They don't have any order, we order them by imaginary standards.
There are probably lots of critiques of the Ontological Argument by smarter people than me, but I'm going to take a crack at it. One way I can think this argument might be challenged: the concept of infinity.
If one posits a "greatest possible entity that could be conceived", one could argue that there isn't necessarily any limit on any given aspect of greatness. Greatness could very well be an infinite scale. Therefore, there is no "greatest" possible being that could be conceived, because no matter how great of a being you're thinking of, there must exist one that is greater still. To be the "greatest" possible being is, by definition, impossible.
Here's another take in the same vein: if the greatest possible being necessarily has to exist, then surely the second greatest has to exist also, and the third greatest, and so on; each only being infinitesimally less great than their better. However, if all of those beings have designs on intervening in the universe, then because the second greatest being is only infinitesimally less great than the greatest being (and so on) then they must inherently disagree on some aspect of the universe. The greatest being is right, of course, because it's the greater being, but the second greatest being is almost as powerful as the greatest being, so the greatest being has to spend almost all of its power keeping the second greatest being in check so it doesn't screw everything up. Same with the second greatest being vs. the third greatest, and so on. Therefore, intervention in the universe must be impossible, because all the "Gods" that can be conceived spend all their time struggling with each other for control of the universe and therefore have no ability to actually intervene in it.
These are more of an argument against religious belief than against the existence of God itself, though. The first argument basically says any religion could say it worships the "supreme" God, and that the gods of all other religions are inferior, and it would be impossible to disprove them. The second argument says that all the Gods are way too busy dealing with each other to care about us anyway, so worship is basically meaningless.
Personally, I feel like the Ontological Argument makes the idea of the existence of God seem even more dubious and bizarre if you take it seriously. But hey, I'm no philosophy expert. Y'all can make up your own minds.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
~Epicurus
The answer is number 3 both able and willing. Why evil? Because He loves us.
I am thinking about a father teaching his son to ride a bike without stabilizers.
Because He is all knowing. Easily debunked
@@aidanf7507but if he knows of all evil, why doesn’t he stop it?
@@FailSpace2 he must have a good reason for doing so.
I followed this logic but arrived at the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because pasta is better than no pasta. Where am I going wrong?
Who told you you were going wrong?
@@thefruitman3200 Nobody yet.
@@AM_o2000 exactly
Insanely high production questions for this amount of subscribers. Great video.
“If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?”
-Percy Bysshe Shelley
Well, if anyone has spent time listening to the atheist experience, you will have heard this argument many times. It doesn't prove a God because while the definition used in this video is convenient, the usual description of God by nearly all major religions is.. Omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent.. All knowing, all powerful, and all loving.
I know that even within those mainstream religions there are underlying teachings which differ from that popular definition. But that brings us to a bigger scenario.
Let's hypothetically argue that a conscious God (not a force such as ain soph aur, big bang etc etc) exists. In order for this reality to be the product of it's creation it must lack one of the afore mentioned three attributes.
If it isn't omniscient or omnipotent then it becomes as irrelevant as if it didn't exist at all. Why? Because all we need to do is observe nature. Looking beyond our safe bubble of civilization. Nature is carnal, merciless, and fueled by devouring and birthing itself. Hence the oroboros.
Pain, misery, suffering and death, are all things which become apparent to lifeforms innately. Even a bacteria will try to escape the grasp of a predator and flee. The gazelle, the bunny, even the lion will do anything to avoid the agony of predation.
So, if God created this reality, then why from the start, make such predatory nature an aspect of it's masterpiece? If it lacks omniscience, or omnipotence, then it couldn't prevent reality from being this way because it either doesn't know that suffering is happening, or it has created a reality which spiraled out of it's control.
Yet if it is the greatest, most powerful thing of all, then lacking those attributes is an unlikely possibility. But there is another possibility, one that is more likely, and more horrible than the others. God lacks omnibenevolence. In other words, God is not all love, all good, but just like the lion, or serpent, enjoys the suffering of living things.
It enjoys causing it, and feeling it through us. God is as malevolent as it is benevolent. Yet it goes further, if we were to impose this mentality upon a fellow human, we would say that they are mentally unstable. One moment loving, the next, predatory. So, maybe God is actually omnimalevolent. All evil. We could say that without pleasure there could be no pain. Without love, no loss. So maybe, all that is good and pleasant is merely a lure, setting us up for our eventually suffering. Which no living thing can escape.
It seems to me that for those who argue the existence of a personified, conscious God.. You have bigger questions to answer than simply, whether or not it exists.
Predator and prey define life. It is the hunger that drives survival. So why would a God that is benevolent make it that way? When it could have made the laws of reality in any other way. Ways that simply exclude the possibility of suffering.
I think you are making some assumptions. God can't make something not logically possible as it would not exist. The badness in the world is a lack of good. Which is not a thing god created. For good to exist the possibility of the lack of good must also exist even if it never actualizes. God being omnibenevolent in order to bring some goods into existence must also allow the possibilities of lack of those goods or evils. For example love is a good that requires free will which means the possibility of rejection of love. So these attributes don't contradict as maximal good is only possible with the possibility of the lack there of which is evil.
Also this argument is for a genetic God but it ties best to the Christian god as other gods have contingent aspects as well. The other parts of the Christian concept of God that are contingent are historical in nature and other historical arguments apply. Personally I prefer my own ontological argument as I think it gets rid of a lot of the confusion and imprecise language. Also I don't think omniscience and omnibenevolence are necessary to the Christian god as they are implied. Good is what the word ought to be like which implies a goal which implies the universe was created with purpose which must come from a mind capable of creating a universe. Omnibenevolence would then mean what got is in agreement with his own will. The Cristian God is best described as the mind of the being of existence. He is existence personified so to speak. If God is the things that actualizes things that exist he would be onipotant as he literally creates all things and omniscient as he would know about all he causes to exist. Also for things to exist but not all possible things there must be a deciding force to the being of existence which we call a mind as that is all we know that can do such a thing. So to say that God is the mind of existence itself is in line with the bible and would have the three attributes to the maximal degree. I think those on the atheist experience lack a full understanding of how these attributes connect and where they come from logically as the mesh on a deeper level
This is why esoteric spirituality is important. Gnostic cosmology will answer your last sentence.
You have a corrupted view of God, the Bible says sin is the reason all those points you mentioned happen...
@@rodneymoonga7993 no, God has a corrupt view of reality, of us. There either is no "God", or God is corrupt. Because God, if it exists, created a place where supposed "sin" is even possible. Sin, karma, whatever you want to call it exist because God made it possible. Why would it do that?
Not to mention if God is all knowing, then it already ready knows which evils will be committed when, and by whom. So that means there is no free will also. Unless God isn't all knowing, or isn't all powerful? In which case it isn't relevant.
@@adrianbenedictmendoza6818 yeah I know about the demiurge, but that's just kicking the can down the road isn't it? The gnostics still have not answered the question I pose.
this brings me back to when i first left islam at 16 years old, i had also contemplated the existence of god purely from an ontological point of view. unknowingly at the time, i had constructed a reverse-ontological argument for god's existence out of just sitting in my room for hours contemplating (and dissociating lol) and had 2 internal monologues each arguing for and against the possibility of god's existence.
basically, i followed the same steps for the ontological argument, but there was a glaring flaw in the first argument "the greatest being that can ever exist"; it being a being requires that it possesses will - and will, at its core, is a process that's made for decision-making.
it makes sense that humans and other animals possess a will, as it is a necessity to ensure survival, but the more important takeaway here is this: we do not control our will - it is instead, reliant on pre-existing mechanisms to construct a process that will lead to an outcome, and the force that dictates this mechanism cannot have a will of its own and even if it does, we will still loop back to the same issue, so eventually, the greatest force possible will always be an unwilling unconscious mechanism of chaos, and from that mechanism, it's not necessary anymore for a god to exist, in fact, it is a lot more likely to create hundreds of billions of creatures than a single omnipotent entity (and still, the entity will likely not be able to overpower the fundamental chaotic force, but rather have the highest ability to manipulate everything within it, especially since its own will is dictated by said force)
so in conclusion, we would at best have a very powerful deity, but not really omnipotent. also inb4 someone brings this up: supposing it also has the ability to alter the greater force, the fact that it willed that eventually stems from said force, and the new force will still be a byproduct of the same greater force that possesses no will on its own
TL;DR: RNG is the real god, and it has no will
I think the flaw in this argument is that you place a divine will in a human box.
Humans are in time so therefore our wills are directed by reason because we aren’t in possession of all knowledge and we also make successive decisions. Yet, for a being which is eternal they would be pure will because there would be no preexisting data to reason out. His will would emanate from his nature as the manifestation of it.
also about the personhood argument; it's the weakest of everything said here but i'll still address it: personhood isn't a scale it's a descriptor and our bias for living things skews our perception of it, but when you look at it from an objective cosmic view, the rock is a matter lacking will, and the fish is a matter with will, and a human is a matter with will that has a more complex mechanism... all of them are still regulated by the same fundamental forces
@@hayman5500 so it’s on a scale then… from least complex participation in reality to most.
@@hayman5500 these are all scales of being, we say “personhood” as the tick mark of where we are in the scale of being, yet there are things that lay beyond “personhood” which have more participation is being.
To negate a will to a creator is to say we have more participation in being then he does and that’s incoherent.
You heard it here folk, being dead doesnt exist because its a negative definition, you cant die, its just another level of the same thing, having personhood
That’s not a negative descriptor. It’s a quality. “Not dead” is not a descriptor. I don’t know if it’s alive, has the capability of being alive or what have you.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Dead is a "quality" but Personhood isn't, arbitrarily exempting it from this specific situation somehow, how convenient! Now let me simply rebuke by saying personhood is a "quality" not a descriptor creating another paradox and showing how arbitrary this logic can be
@@ApoLk_ dead is a quality because it is a state. Personhood is also a quality because it is a state of possessing the necessary preconditions for personhood. Something not being water isn’t a quality, however, if we saying something has three oxygen molecules we are technically saying it isn’t water but we’re saying it isn’t water by describing what it actually is.
The logic isn’t arbitrary you just don’t understand it.
@@Esch-a-ton3
Dead is literally defined by something *not being alive* , if negative descriptors are invalid, so is the concept of being dead/unborn as we know since they would both describe something that is INDEED alive, just less so. I guess my grandma is alive and also has personhood right now, just not as much as me lol
I wonder why I'm not understanding the concept of the living death, its so simple! No personhood and let's say 0.00001 are both desiring personhood, in other words, zero personhood personhood!
@@ApoLk_ that’s actually a incorrect definition because a rock is not alive yet we wouldn’t say the rock is dead. not being alive is a state of existence. Saying something is dead is affirming it did have life at least at one point so by saying it’s dead is affirming something But if I just say something is Not alive, that doesn’t narrow much down for me because I could ask was it ever alive, is it inanimate, is it purely conceptual etc etc ad Infinitum
Glad to see you in my feed good sir!! I love topics like this. Its why my mind thinks so many things when someone asks a "simple" question like, "Do you believe in God?"
lmao the random transphobia right at the end. wtf is wrong with this guy
He's a Christian 😂
Where?
Bro and negative descriptors do describe things. The state of not being something is still a state.
A descriptor tag the qualities of something, and something not being something is still a description.
All things aside, I love the video dude, this was awesome. A few things I don't agree with, by my comments, but this is fire dude.
If you can go on for infinity without describing anything it's not a descriptor. A descriptors function is to describe obviously and if you can speak ad infinitum without doing that then it doesn't work
@@Esch-a-ton3There are an infinite amount of things that are bumpy, since bumpy is a thing of relativity/comparison.
Descriptors don't describe the essence of a thing, but are used together to give an idea of what said thing is.
A negative descriptor does just this, by giving an idea of what it is, by identifying what it is not.
Descriptions point out key qualities of a thing, and I would argue that stating what something is not, gives someone a better idea of what a thing is.
For example, this door, is not that door. What makes this door different from that door? it isn't that door. It sounds goofy, but that is a description of a quality it holds, and all descriptions serve to help differentiate and identify things. If saying that this door is not that door successfully conveys the idea that there is a difference between the two doors, even as small as just not being eachother, then a description has been achieved.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Also everything can go on for infinity for describing anything speficic. For example, has vents, rounded at some edges, has gears, can move, has lettering on it, has multiple removable parts; Like I just described my space heater 🤣 But that same description can apply to a microwave, a car, a warehouse, etc. Descriptions are very context dependent, and without context, all descriptors, regardless of how percise, can be applicable to anything, because there isn't a set way that things can be seen. It's like the elephant allegory, with the wisemen touching the elephant and describing it, they're all touching the same thing, but a different world view leads them to percieving and understanding it differently, and it's only once the lights are on (The context) that the descriptions actually have a general acceptance.
The idea that God must inherently possess the same attributes as you mention has contradictions and issues. Imagine a scenario with a developer who designs a simulation, the developer would not be deemed a god entirely by virtue of creating the simulation. There is no inherent requirement that the creator of any existence must be the highest order possible. Even farther, the universe itself is far from perfect anyway. Issues within fundamental aspects of physics show this imperfection. For example, the contradiction between quantum physics and classical physics poses considerable challenges. While each system works within its region, they appear non-cooperative when compared. An example is the dual nature of photons, which act with both particle and wave like properties. An apparent *logical* contradiction that still functions in practice. Even if we were to say if God is perfect, the attribute of person-hood and of any other object would be contradictory. Humans aren't even perfect either, so why would our attributes be chosen?
A developer and God are not analogous because using a developer just kicks the can down the road. We aren’t talking about a developer here. However, if we were, all characteristics of the simulation would still indeed come from the developer.
There are no imperfections between quantum physics and traditional physics. If there were physics would not give us a harmonious reality nor would it be something we could study because it would be inconsistent. Rather, there are ways physics behave at a quantum level and a traditional level which are different yet this difference doesn’t represent an imperfection but rather something we just don’t understand. I could look at a trigonometry question and answer, not understand it but I couldn’t say trigonometry was an inperfect system just because I didn’t understand it. Based off the fact that we can harness quantum physics reliably like in the case of quantum computing proves it is a perfect system.
In regards to human imperfections, this argument doesn’t posit that humans are perfect beings. However, your awareness of imperfections in humans shows us that you do indeed know of a perfect being because how would you know of an imperfect being if you didn’t know what perfection was? Imperfection would just be the status quo and there would be no distinction between perfection and imperfection because perfection would not exist. However, that’s not the case. But if perfection exists, point to it in the material world. We can’t do it. We experience perfection because we have knowledge of it yet can’t point to it because it is intuitive and transcendental.
@@Esch-a-ton3 Perfect
The idea of perfection does not necessarily mean that it exists, we can imagine a perfect chair, that has The absolute most quality of 'chairness' as the ideal chair we usually think of when we think chair.
That does not mean that this chair exists, we can imagine it, but could it ever be conceptualized? Would we ever know it when we see it? Would it even be possible to exist?
And the idea that personhood is the quality that leads to perfection is also anthropocentric, if God conceptualized as the most person person, shouldn't he also be conceptualized as the most monkey monkey? The perfect monkey must exist, the perfect cat, the perfect alien, can God simultaneously be all of these things? Does embodiment if the perfect qualities of these other things detract from personhood?
Or does the scale simply stop at personhood arbitrarily because we believe that we're the center of this unfathomable universe?
@@Esch-a-ton3epistemologically all rests on faith, faith in God or your own reason
@@thevoiceofthelosthuman beings bear the image of God
thanks for this video bro. This thought popped up in my head some time ago and I've spent some time pondering whether it's heretical or something. You explained it in much more understandable way than I was explaining it to myself
Proof is a mathematical concept that occurs when one shows that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the outcome.
As such, anything can be proven depending on the first stated assumptions. And therefore, not every proof is true.
This is why proofs need to be caroborated with reality in order to find out if something is true - being true is defined as that which is in accordance with reality.
And so when searching for truth (that which is in accordance with reality) we have many inherent biases which effect our judgements. In order to combat these, we do not look for evidence to support our assumptions. We look for evidence against them.
Go back to school and pay attention this time.
Perfection. Science is the process of deciding which of the infinitely many axiomatic proof systems corresponds with measurements of reality well enough to predict future measurements.
I like to say that "logic is only as good as it's axioms".
i agree with your comment but idk why you had you ruin it with the insult
@@callmetony1319 What insult?
@@justinbyrge8997 "Go back to school and pay attention this time."
This man just described the entire concept of entropy and said that has to be a god
Just because the greatest comedian conceivable which no greater comedian can be conceived, can be imagined, does not mean they exist
Plato had a similar argument in his "Theory of Forms," but if I remember right, it failed. An idea that a shape must have a perfect form somewhere out there in the chaos reality, and we are only privy to a lesser image (to simplify it). I know you said, "Our reality functions under the laws of logic." Yet, under logic fails to justify events, and we're left struggling between what is fowl and what is fair. The two seem to alternate constantly. If a planet explodes, that is fulfilling a series of events, and that is fair until we're the ones living on it. This idea comes from my imagination, which begs the question of being logical at all. So, if I imagine a possibility that could exist, how can it be deemed logical and true?
"There's no rule stating a fake can't surpass the original!"
Edit: BTW, brother, thank you for explaining this so succinctly. I've always felt this intuitively but was doubtful words could do it justice. You proved they can come close. God Speed.
"...we know god is a person" We do? What kind of statement is that?
Human imagination is a powerful thing, but what's lacking from this explanation like in so many others is any hard evidence.
And there isn't any that's why it can't be demonstrated or proven. This is just another word salad, nothing more or less.
You cannot philosophize god into existence.
William "Lame" Craig is the best known proponent of this kind of skewed logic, and he's completely wrong too.
Yo, I'm a trained philosopher, this is great. Normies can't hang
Glad it has your respect 🫡
The echo the dolphin soundtrack hijacked my brain. Haven't heard that in a loooooong time!
It’s SO GOOD
One thing that I live by is to prioritize living my life to the fullest because with experience of trying to understand a higher power than me, I realized that it was completely absurd and a waste of time. If we were supposed to understand a power greater than us on earth we would’ve been figured it out, go into the real world and interact with yourself and others that are in your realm.
If God exists then where was God before there was any existence - that is before creation? In reality God does not exist since God made existence. The interesting question then becomes how does God enter into and relate to His creation? We then come to the Logos and to John 1 and to Philo of Alexandria and others. This is why the Trinity is so important and central.
And that sir, is my favorite topic in all of theology!
ForANewHearT
Shalom 🙏
Yes God does not exist, to exist means to be in a body or have tension in the X chromosomes, hence x-is-tense/existence. To exist is to be inferior to where God is
@@Ringerofthelie wait and where it says Jesus Christ is 'the word made flesh ' ?
God is both Eternal and Omnipresent, he exists everywhere and everywhen, prior to creation (time is part of creation), God simply existed everywhere, but without location, since locations didn't exist
Why is personhood a perfection and not treehood, rockhood or doghood?
Personhood means a unified sense of identity, so dogs and trees are persons
There is an easier way to prove God's existence:
The term "God" is simply a title. It indicates the being the speaker believes is worthy of worship (Example: "My God is Jesus", "My God is the sun", "My God is [insert random idolatry]")
Christians believe that "Existence" is worthy of worship.
Therefore, the God of the Christians is Existence.
Does "Existence" exists?
It must by definition.
Conclusion: God exists because He must by definition.
Now, since Existence encompasses all things, it must encompass Conciousness itself, making it therefore, at least in some way, concious.
At this point, one can still be an Atheist. All he has to do, is reject Premise One and say: "But I don't hold Existence to be worthy of my warship".
Ok, fair enough. Then what is worthy of worship. You could say: "The Universe", or "Me", or even "Nothing", but everything, even "nothing", is part of Existence. Non Existence is not "Nothing". The Void of Space is "Nothing", yet it still exists. Non-Existence is the logical impossibility, which cannot be worshiped because it cannot even be thought. But since anything you choose to worship must exist, it is contained in Existence, and therefore, through whatever you worship, you are actually worshiping Existence, or at least a part of it.
At this point, you are forced to accept the Christian God.
Your only way out, is by escaping Logic. You reject God, knowing full well He is God, and go against Him in a lost battle, knowing it's a lost battle, just out of spite, with no real alternatives to Him. That is literally the fall of Lucifer. This is Damnation, and nothing can save you from such a radically stupid choice.
Very good explanation 👍🏻
if i worship my dog and call him a dragon, is that proof of dragons?
God is not existence it's ridiculous
@@9_1.1 what is the definition of dragon?
@@ВячеславВячеславыч-с7с Can you imagine something greater than Existence?
We are still just ants with magnifying glasses investigating our ant farm while the person who constructed it watches.
Main issue: The entity is not necessary because our very concept of "being" is as made up as math.
The concept of "a first positive integer" in math is required only for maths sake.
The concept of the greatest eternal being and whatever else you wanna add is just necessary for the set of "beings" sake.
Both are abstractions, imaginaries, tools to aid us to define and understand things on reality. They might or might not be applicable to it.
You are lucky this wasn't your own argument and that we aren't on 4chan.
My problem with this argument is simply the fact that the definition of God being proposed as "The greatest being/thing conceivable, that which no greater being can be conceived" is not a very useful definition logically. "Greatness" can mean many things depending on the context in which it is used. It is true that a scale of comparison is implicit in the word "greatness", but what is it that's actually being compared? "Thingness"? "Beingness"? Can a thing that is a thing be more of a thing than another thing? What makes a thing is the attribute of being distinguishable by that which perceives it. What makes a being is the attribute of simply existing. These attributes are binary, a thing is either a thing or it is not, a being is a being only if it exists. Therefore, the idea of "the geatest thing/being concievable" is essentially meaningless unless attributes are introduced to the argument that can actually be compared on a scale with actual magnitudes not just a simple binary.
I believe that whether there is something that fits the bill of "God" or not, its existence has no obligation to be provable through logic or any other observable consequent of this universe. I think this argument is kind of like a rudimentary precursor to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but just because the existence of one thing necessitates the existence of something which supports that thing's existence and so on and so forth doesn't mean we should arbitrarily label and define that phenomenon whichsoever way we choose and pretend that we know what it truly is, which is exactly what we do when we use the word "God" in the first place, IMO.
I'm quite tired, so hopefully all of that made sense.
I want to know what is the greatest shape to throw in Rock Scissors Paper.
Just because you can conceive of a something doesn’t mean it actually exists or that it’s even possible that it exists. You’re saying that it’s possible as if “possibility” isn’t a claim in of itself that requires evidence and proof.
Ima lie, this a banger 🔥🔥🔥🔥
how do you only have 1000 followers your content is amazing
I’m happy you enjoy it! 🙏🏽
I just think creating a scale of personhood and assigning fish to be before a dog just so god can be at the top is the same as creating a scale of sweetness, putting rotting flesh before a cake and saying that God definetly tastes the sweetest
Damn, donkey Kong country music in a video about god is just *chefs kiss*
This is why people just say there " has to be" cause explaining any of this at any moment is what it sounds like
When something can only be explained by imagination is therefore a very good tip that it is not reality.
Like all of math? All of logic? Like space flight?
@@Esch-a-ton3 Math is abstract thinking. Math is not real as we know, but we use it to cuantify basing it in special units as meters to understand and predict the natural or social things. It doesnt exists as a bigger thing or something trascendent. If some things are similar to a mathematical concept its because we use to understand that things or maybe is a coincidence.
@@juanchymartin7824 if your argument is true there should be absolutely no reason why it realistically and reliably applies to reality.
@@Esch-a-ton3 There are reasons, we model things and our mind evolve to find patrons, inclusive in things that doesnt have one. The maths are pure abstract thinking. Thats the reason why we can create various models of a same thing in different areas of maths, as walrasian microeconomics, that use caluculus and there are models or problems that is concenient using topology. The same in physics. We use the math as a hammer to fix a thing. The hammer itself doesnt fix a thing, but if it use it by the human it would. You are confusing the possibility of using it as a very good descriptor of reality with the math itself, that doesnt follow the logic of the real world and have more than one logic. In problems of linear programming you have to eliminate all negative numbers because it doesnt have any meaning in reality.
@@Esch-a-ton3 As useful as you see it, math is something that we apply for that reason. Math it doesnt communicate anything about reality.
We study the reality and use units and mathematical concepts to create a model of that reality. Is very obvious when you think in the ways you can create other algebraic structures when 1+1=3 or the use of differential equations in many sciences but the use of knot theory isnt so popular.
Picturing Gon trying to fathom the existence of God cracked me up
The causeless cause in a reality of causes ❤
The greatest cause of all causes in every causes of causing causes 🤔
@@markovia110 sure, why not? Lol
@@WriteTrax And the greatest effect affects the effect of all the overall effects that affected the impact of effects, seems about right...
@@markovia110 I can't find a flaw in your logic sir
the best thing i learned in philosophy 101 is that the idea that there is no absolute truth is a logical falacy.
my biggest problem with this argument is that it asserts truths that are not objectively true there is no such thing as good great or bad, ancient egyptians worshiped cats but i don't think many people today would say cats are greater than humans same thing goes with morality which im sure your familiar with there is no objective right or wrong people agree and disagree on morality all the time even in christianity
Yeah, I am tired of all the religious people pulling definitions of "good" and "bad" out of their ass
The universe doesn't care about our good or bad
@@mistrsportak9940 no wonder Jesus says no one is good
also the "greatest being" definition of god sucks. my Sluggoth diety is greater than all conceivable beings, and being inconceivable it projects lesser illusions of conceivable gods to lure religious people into its inconceivable infinite dimensional hyper stomach.
Somehow you've managed to evade hearing the level of misanthropy spouted out by animal lovers. Cat people especially worship animals above humans. Elevating the former while relegating the latter sounds normal or completely reasonable in their opinion. I've accepted Cat people don't yet realize what they're suggesting when proudly declaring cats are superior companions and creatures by themselves juxtaposed to humans. Subjective experiences forming closed-minded opinions remain the same regardless of time period. Humans today who worship cats still openly humanize animals while simultaneously dehumanizing if not despising human beings. Once you're inside their spaces; you'll hear their actual opinions devaluing people.
Morality is a logical extension of God. And they are using greater and greatest in a different context. They mean the maximal of a property. It's not great as in something good.
Excellent production, your presentation is just what TH-cam videos should be like
Glad you think so!
so did Descartes just steal Anselm's argument? side note, what do you think about Kant's critique to this regarding 'being' can't be a predicate?
Being cannot be a predicate, however necessary being is one. That’s how it’s generally been resolved in modern philosophy
One of the problems about recognizing divine process is that the formula requires self-initiation into such discovery. Which means nobody can prove god to you because the key unlocking factor requires your own embrace. The whole argument of atheists saying show me proof show me proof is a lost cause. If they don’t seek it themselves, they will not see it.
I disagree on the idea that we can measure if something is “perfect” or not, these are human concepts, the universe doesn’t think, things just are, they can’t be qualified (not a native English speaker)
Correct. We can not, but if we can conceive of it, then it is possible. And if it’s possible, it exists. That’s what this argument shows. Notice how it isn’t whether we do or do not conceive it, it’s whether we can.
My strongest counter argument (even though I am a Christian) is that this being can’t be conceived. Because the greatest thing would be beyond our conceivability. (But because it is maximally personal, it must be conceivable so…)
isn't perfection a subjective thing ? like you can't say something is perfect in every sense because it changes from person to person and something that is everything can't be perfect and unperfect at the same time (perfection is in the mind its not an objective thing (things either exist or they don't there isn't any "good" or "bad" inherently , thus there is no "perfect" thing.
and because of that its not personal, you can't define personhood as a result from perfect because it doesn't exist)
also negative attributes are equal to real attributes in the sense that in both you need an infinite of them to describe a specific thing . (just with the negative ones is the "bigger infinite" (because you have to rule out all the possibilities instead of specifying it )
idk where im getting here its just my shower thoughts im not here to argue or anything
im probably dum tho and misunderstood something
The true god is beyond greatness, because he is beyond this reality or the logic itself. He his better than perfect and he's name is Nak%zori$#. I know that because someone told me. There's no argument against that.
As an artist one day you learn that the most beautiful moment of artistic creation in your life was your birth.
No wonder they strive for GE Ai
Great content, I hope you make more
The mention of perfection is brought out of nowhere with nothing to back it up. Up till that point you made logical and reasonable sense. Why must god be perfect? Why can god not be imperfect?
God must have the maximally greatest neck. Therefore, it must be Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe and not the Christian god.
leaf be upon her!
I still dont see how being able to imagine something that is the greatest thing in existence proves that its real. We can imagine all sorts of concepts we can imagine pretty much everything
Exactly that’s the point. If we can imagine it it logically exists just as a square or a circle would. However, if this thing is actually the greatest existing in the conceptual world, it also would exist in the actual world
@Esch-a-ton3 being able to imagine a concept doesnt guarantee its existence
Alright, who here has Alex O’Connors phone number
He made a video 7 years ago on this argument
@@ModernTruth-nx5jc thanks! Good to know
> Anselm : a perfect being has to exist because that is the attribute of a perfect being
> why ?
> A: because that's how a perfect being would be
> why ?
> A: because a perfect being would have to exist first before it could be perfect, it is a necessary prerequisite
> how do you know that a perfect being exists ?
> A: because that's what a perfect being would do
circularity at it's finest : perfect being has to exist because it has to exist because it has to exist
♾♾♾
The only valid argument is the transcendental argument for god. The ontological argument fails at multiple points, for example, one can refute it using its own argument: "Can you imagine a world where God doesn't exist? If yes, God can't exist in any world, since that would imply God exists in every possible world." See how it begs the question of whether one's imagination has access to the ontological?
I disagree. It's not begging the question, it's a tautology. If I say "either this ball is green or of any other colour", this is obviously correct in every scenario, but it's not begging the question, it's true because the concept itself implies it is.
Likewise, we can't conceive of, say, a world where existence doesn't exist because existence is a concept that proves itself. Thinking of a world where there are 0 properties at all would only lead to us thinking that this world doesn't exist, so existence is always necessary
But it actually proves one’s mind has access to the ontological because it can fathom the being. And since it can conceive it and there’s no logical contradiction, it must exists.
Its existence IS existence.
Even if existence is encoded in the concept of God that doesn’t entail He actually exists - at best it implies a trivial conditional, namely, if God exists He exists necessarily. But that’s as empty as saying “if P then P” since necisdity is constitutive of the concept of God. It’s still an open question as to whether P is true categorically. You can try to plug-in some logical objects (conceivability, modality, higher-order predication, etc) to deduce the categorical premise God exists but such logical objects will function relative to the concept which entails its truth-conditions, but that’s just to say any function you plug-in for that deduction will beg the question. So, necessarily, all ontological arguments for Gods existence per the concept will either be trivial or question-begging.
@@Esch-a-ton3 How do you respond to "the ontological argument for the non-existence of God"?
Premise 1:
If God exists in one conceivable world, he must exist in all conceivable worlds.
Premise 2:
It is conceivable that God doesn't exist
Conclusion by modus tollens:
God does not exist in any conceivable world.
@@spherinder5793 Shouldn't you straightforward claim "I don't care" and not waste anyone's time.
A table in a dream is made of the dreamer.
A dreamer, dreaming within a dream is still the dreamer.
A dream character is seemingly seperate from the dreamer, but is actually the dreamer. Both seemingly independent and having free will. Both preforming actions known to the dreamer, but ignorant of the dream.
at 1:50 mark you said this isn't an argument for a particular god, and the screen shot has Christianity vs Islam...... THATS THE SAME GOD LOL LOL LOL!
One is the triune orthodox God, the other is a child diddling spawn of satan.
@@spherinder5793They are both falsehoods, one not better than the other in any regard.
@@arthurcosta4643 hi lol
Untrue
@@arthurcosta4643untrue
I had a mental breakdown in the first four minutes of this video, the title is accurate.
God is the alpha and omega, the creation and creator. A paradox within itself.
1. Imagine the greatest being conceivable
2. If he were contingent on something, he wouldn't be the greatest being conceivable
3. So, he would have to be contingent on nothing
4. Thus, God exists
The conclusion isn't supported by the premises. It's true that if the greatest being conceivable existed, he would have to be contingent on nothing. That doesn’t prove its existence.
Very nice. Thank you for your work.
Glad you enjoyed!
That 3 cylinder engine that used to come in the Metros was bulletproof. Loved those cars.
So God literally willed himself into existence