Necessary Existence - Reformulation of the Ontological Argument
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ต.ค. 2019
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas, today they will be going back to the Ontological Argument and looking into the idea of God’s Necessary Existence.
The reformulation of the Ontological Argument was a revisit to the traditional Philosophical argument for the existence of God, attempting to prove the existence of God through a priori logic. Although the Ontological Argument ran into fundamental flaws, Philosophers have since attempted to revive the argument, with a focus on God’s Necessary existence across all possible worlds.
Does this version of the Ontological Argument go the distance in logically proving the existence of God? Watch as George and John take a look into the theory.
Ontological Argument Video: • The Ontological Argume...
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part I" eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QM8QXC
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QM8QXC
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QM8QXC
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QM8QXC
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QM8QXC
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QM8QXC
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Check out our book "Does God Exist: A Philosophical Inquiry" Paperback & eBook, available on Amazon: www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL
Check out the Philosophy Vibe merchandise store: philosophy-vibe-store.creator...
#ontologicalargument #necessaryexistence #philosophy #existenceofGod
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part I" eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QM8QXC
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QM8QXC
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QM8QXC
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QM8QXC
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QM8QXC
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QM8QXC
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
Actually the existence of a knowno is logically incoherent. A being cannot know there is no perfect being unless it's all knowing. And being all knowing itself, it's actually a perfect being itself (or a maximally great being by default).
But isn’t the knowledge that god doesn’t exist one small piece of knowledge (and not all knowledge in existence.) So couldn’t you argue you don’t have to be all knowing to know god doesn’t exist. For example if there was proof that all the Bible’s were written as stories and not as real, then there would be a situation in which the idea of god formulated from fiction would not be based on a historical document, we could all know the truth
@@ulysseschaslus2048 no, not really. And we're not talking about the God of the bible here, most people agree that this character is just a fiction of people's imagination. But an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent being could exist, and we cannot prove that it doesn't -its qualities are not self contradictory, even tho many people tried to create silly paradoxes with them. A being can speculate that God doesn't exist, or it can be almost certain, but to declaire that God doesn't exist with 100% certainty and accuracy is logically impossible. Why? Because it would require to have access to levels of knowledge far beyond of what any non-omniscient being could have. To know that something exists or doesn't exist, one must have some type of access to it. Either by their senses, by mathematical equasions (that's how we know that the laws of physics in other parts of the universe exist) or some other instrunment (how we know that planets in other parts of the universe exist even tho we can't see them with our eyes). Proving that God DOESN'T exist is impossible, because one would have to have access to every possible reality and plane of existence, every possible being that exists in all possible realities etc, thus making themselves omniscient. If they are omniscient, their claim that God doesn't exist would be false (depending on the definition of the word, some would say God has to be eternal but I think a supermind that became omniscient and omnipotent at one point in time could also be considered a God) - since now THEY are God.
@@ulysseschaslus2048 Plus, as for the "eternal" quality, this hypothetical being that became omniscient at one point in time would now have the knowledge to also become omnipotent, thus having BOTH the knowledge AND resources to get outside of the dimention of time, thus becoming eternal (eternity doens't mean infinite time but existence BEYOND time altogether). And there is no reason to speculate that this is impossible to happen, that God indeed became God at one point in time, then God exited the dimention of time altogether and then CREATED the very universe that would allow his birth and creation, causing a very interesting paradox of causal loop. But that's a story for another time haha
If God cannot cease to exist, how come we call him omnipotent? LOL
@@bangladeshrationalistmovem6619 Omnipotence doesn't mean that logical contradictions can exist. A perfect being cannot change because perfection cannot contain imperfection or the potential for imperfection nor can it change to be more perfect, because in all cases it would be less than perfect to start with.
So god cannot be and then not-be because that is a change of state of being and the perfect does not change.
I think one could argue that a Knowno is incoherent.
If a Knowno exists in a possible world, one can tie it back to the Contingency Argument for God; either the Knowno's existence is neccessary, or it is contingent on something else.
If the Knowno is itself neccessary, then it is a perfect being, in which case the Concept of a Knowno is self-contradicting.
If the Knowno is contingent on something else, then ultimately a neccessary being is needed to explain the contingent ones. In this case, the Knowno's knowledge would be incorrect and thus incoherent.
So I don't think a Knowno is a logically coherent concept
Very good point
Umm good point actually
exactly
Knowno can only speak true where god can speak both true and false. Thus Knowno is non superior to God. Knowno spoke “god doesn’t exist”. Now?
@@bangladeshrationalistmovem6619 If God does exist, then it would be impossible for your illustrated know-no to utter the statement "God does not exist."
I do after effects work for a living - and so I’m aware of the amount of work that this would take to make. Impressive!
Thank you very much :)
Fancy seeing you here.
I'm preparing for Theodicea exame and you guys are such a big help! Thank you!
You're welcome. Best of luck in the exam.
@@PhilosophyVibe thank you!
I've got a 5!!!!
😊😊
Fantastic, congratulations!
@@PhilosophyVibe thank you again! 😀😀
WOW! This channel is AWESOME in delivernig things simply! I just wish there was a little bit more ''quality'' in the animation.
Thank you, we’re glad you like the content. Apologies the animation is not better quality, ultimately we’re philosophers and not animators so we can’t produce the best work in that respect. 😔
@@PhilosophyVibe Oh, no need for apologies, you guys STILL ROCK!
@@theflash9735 Thank you very much :)
I think that the notion of a knowno is incoherent since to be able to know whether maximal greatness is possibly or impossibly exemplified you must be omniscient. And, if you are omniscient you must de facto be the maximally great being. You just can't be omniscient and be impotent and contingent.
Secondly, there are many reasons to think that the existence of a maximally great being is indeed possible (apart from the a posteriori arguments of course).
Quoting from my school research project:
"The concept of God seems to be a coherent concept because the properties of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence do not seem to be incoherent or incompatible with each other as the concepts of a square circle or a married bachelor or an existing non-existing being would be. And thus, until one is able to demonstrate that the concept of Maximal Greatness is incoherent we should accept that Maximal Greatness is a coherent concept by default. Finally, the fact that all the objections to said concept fail further proves that such concept is indeed coherent."
"Moreover, the Modal Perfection Argument developed by Robert Maydole establishes that Maximal Greatness is a possible property. It goes as follows:
1. If a property is a ‘great-making’ property, its negation is a ‘lesser-making’ property.
2. ‘Great-making’ properties do not entail ‘lesser-making’ properties. (Makes sense because a ‘great-making’ property could not be a ‘great-making’ property if it entailed ‘lesser-making’ properties.)
3. Maximal Greatness is the greatest ‘great-making’ property, therefore it cannot entail its negation of non-Maximal Greatness. (In modal logic, a property that is impossible will entail its opposite.) If we conclude that Maximal Greatness is an impossible property then all things must negate Maximal Greatness, therefore all things entail non-Maximal Greatness including all impossible properties such as Maximal Greatness. But looking back at the first point we see that Maximal Greatness cannot entail its opposite because ‘great-making’ properties, such as Maximal Greatness, cannot be ‘great-making’ properties and entail ‘lesser-making’ properties and therefore, Maximal Greatness is a possible property.
Plus, Maximal Greatness is perfection and if perfection is logically absurd then we cannot adequately define things such as evil, ignorance, weakness, etc., as imperfections."
It is possible that, one day in the far and distant future, a sufficiently advanced civilization will understand the nature of the universe and they will travel back in time and create it. No god required.
A Knowno could only exist if it had ALL knowledge. Was perfectly honest and good. And was present everywhere at all times to confirm its knowledge.
The Knowno could only exist if the Knowno itself was God.
knowno can be a simple being mortal who just found out god doesn't exist, what if thats the case in one of the world probabilistically its actually possible, I mean we are at a logger heads over the god in our reality and only one truth can exist , either god exists or not exists.what if he found the truth?
Where can I buy your ebook?
The E-Book can be found on Amazon: www.amazon.co.uk/Does-God-Exist-Philosophical-Inquiry-ebook/dp/B076GRHTQ2
The Paperback can be found on Lulu: www.lulu.com/gb/en/shop/charles-georgiou/does-god-exist-a-philosophical-inquiry/paperback/product-23370512.html
Thank you so much for your interest in the book, every purchase really helps us out. Much appreciated.
@@PhilosophyVibe I have purchased your book. On which platform can I ask questions? I messaged you on Instagram. Are you active there ?
@@mohamedluqman6187 We're not really active on Instagram, Facebook or email would be best philosophyvibe@gmail.com
Why do you have to rank the greatness of beings? I’m not sure existence is a characteristic of a being, or if it is just the status of a particular being either
I would like to see this channel covering the proof of the truthfull.
First, imagining is not the same as knowing. We don't know how vast all existence is. If we are just imagining, there can be no limit to anything. Why can't I imagine something greater than God? Is God's being a chance event or there is a process for it?
There is limit to imagination: try imagining a squared circle lol
1:13 - I'm sceptical of the assumption that any being that created God must necessarily be greater than God. It's not obvious to me that if being X created being Y, then X is necessarily greater than Y.
For example, it's not impossible to imagine humans creating a sentient robot that was (or became) greater than humans in every conceivable way (smarter, stronger, more creative, maybe even more moral, etc).
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by "great".
This is a great point. I think the general thought is that imperfect cannot create perfect, or at least we would not expect the imperfect to have the power to create perfect. But perhaps this is not self evident, as "good" can create "better" (in the case of humans creating robots.)
@@PhilosophyVibe What do you mean by "perfect" when you say that imperfect cannot create perfect? Isn't perfection subjective? I, an imperfect being, can get a perfect score on a math exam. Does that mean that I have created a perfect answer sheet? It's possible that my usage of the word perfect is different than yours, but I also think that the term perfect has been colloquialized in such a way that makes its meaning unclear in rigorous philosophical proofs.
@@PhilosophyVibe But what you are saying holds a supposedly self-evident claim in itself, that robots are better than humans, which is easily and arguably not the case. (let alone not having fixed definitions for "good" and "better")
@@Dexiteros ah, but it's not a logically incoherent idea. I can certainly conceive of a robot that builds robots better than itself. I can also conceive of parents birthing a child that is better than them.
If a being is created, it is by defimition not God.
I am theist, but this argument is the most challenging to understand
not really. it fails as all the other god arguments.
I love how this uses conceptual evidence to entail a ontological truth.
You need Cusanus coincidentia opposotorium for this to work
This is called the “Model Ontological Argument” which is a recent reformulation of the Ontological Argument. It’s misleading to imply arguments for Necessary Existence are simply modern attempts to rescue the Ontological Argument when arguments for Necessary Existence are millennia older. Aristotle was almost certainly formalizing older cosmological arguments in his argument from motion, and Ibn Sina put the argument for a Necessary Being in terms of contingency and necessity before Anselm was even born to write the original Ontological Argument. It is definitely misleading to imply that the idea of Necessary Existence is a modern reformulation of the Ontological Argument just because the Modal Ontologically Argument makes novel use of the term.
this all comes down to ''IF'' existence is a great-making property. When another knowing subject has a different intuition you need to be able to refer to an objective, transcendent frame of reference to adjudicate who is right (platonism. theism, etc.)
something that does not exist cannot be great by default. Even great ideas have to exist into someone's mind to be labeled as such.
@@ashley_brown6106 yes i agree. it is greater to exist than not exist is their argument. (Kant disagrees that existence is a property at all).
The Knowno argument is circular and question begging. We can construct the argument in the following syllogism:
1) If it is possible that a Knowno exists, then God does not exist.
2) It is possible that a Knowno exists.
3) Therefore, God does not exist.
The problem is that in order to affirm premise 2, you would already need to be assuming that God does not exist. If God does exist then the existence of a Knowno is impossible.
So, to affirm premise 2, you must already assume that God does not exist.
And in order to affirm that God does not exist, you must affirm premise 2.
So the argument is clearly circular and question begging.
I think you've missed the point. The Knowno is a refutation to the Ontological argument.
if God exists, then he exists in all possible worlds.
If there is a world where a Knowno exists, then god cannot exist in that world. Since the existence of a Knowno is non-contradictory, and conceivable, then it must exist in some possible world (these are the criteria for the Ontological argument for god). Therefor God doesn't exist in that world, there God cannot exist.
Since the criteria for God existing and a Knowno existing are the same, and they cannot co-exist, we have no reason to choose one over the other. The argument for the existence of a Knowno uses exactly the same logic as the Ontological argument for the existence of God. It doesn't prove the existence of either, it just exposes the Ontological argument as fallacious.
Honestly, I feel it is a fairly weak refutation of the weakest possible argument for god. It wins the fight, but it's like watching toddlers fight over a toy.
@@bskec2177 "I think you've missed the point. The Knowno is a refutation to the Ontological argument." - I am fully aware of what the Knowno argument is, that is why I pointed out how it fails. It seems as though my response to the argument has gone over your head a little bit. Let me explain it again:
In order to affirm premise 2 of the knowno argument, that it is possible that a knowno exists, you must already be assuming that God's existence is impossible. This is because the only way that a Knowno's existence is possible is if God's existence is impossible.
Hence, the argument begs the question. It is circular reasoning.
"Since the existence of a Knowno is non-contradictory, and conceivable, then it must exist in some possible world (these are the criteria for the Ontological argument for god)" - This is simply false. Something being non-contradictory does not mean it exists in a possible world. There are plenty of impossible things things that are not contradictory.
Furthermore, something being conceivable doesn't make it possible either, unless you are defining conceivability to entail possibility.
I can conceive of Hilbert's hotel, for example, and that is precisely why I know it is impossible.
And if you are using the term "conceivable" to entail possibility, then you are begging the question again, since you can only conclude that a knowno is conceivable (possible) if you already assume God's existence is impossible.
"It doesn't prove the existence of either, it just exposes the Ontological argument as fallacious. " - You haven't exposed any fallacy in the argument whatsoever. Even if I granted that what you are saying is true, it still doesn't demonstrate any fallacies. All it would do would serve as an undercutting defeater of some apriori reasons for affirming the possibility of God's existence.
I think it is clear that you haven't understood the modal ontological argument, and I don't think you understand how modal logic works in general. Thinking the knowno argument is anything other than circular reasoning, and thinking that the knowno argument exposes any kind of logical fallacies in the modal ontological argument demonstrates as much.
Also, why did you respond to my comment by simply restating the very argument I already refuted? That is a very strange thing to do. The video presented the knowno argument, I refuted it, and then in response to my refutation you simply restated the argument without responding to my objection at all.
@@jackplumbridge2704You sill don't get it.
Any Ontological syllogism for God can also be constructed for the existence of a Knowno.
For a Knowno to exist, you must presuppose no-god, but for a god to exist you must presuppose no Nowno.
You aren't addressing that. You didn't the first time, and you didn't the second time. You are presupposing god every time, and that's a fallacy. The Knowno is just being used to expose it.
@@bskec2177 "You sill don't get it.
Any Ontological syllogism for God can also be constructed for the existence of a Knowno. " - You are demonstrating that, again, you are the one who is not understanding.
And again, you are failing to address my objection at all.
"For a Knowno to exist, you must presuppose no-god, but for a god to exist you must presuppose no Nowno." - No, you don't. And it is a bit shocking that you don't understand this. You can argue that God's existence is possible without mentioning a knowno at all.
"You are presupposing god every time, and that's a fallacy" - No, im not. I haven't presupposed God at all, in any of my comments. Why are you now resorting to making things up?
The knowno argument is presupposing that God's existence is impossible, as I have clearly demonstrated, and you yourself agree.
The fact that you can openly admit that the argument you are defending is illogical by your own standards, and yet you still defend it and consider it a good argument, is fascinating.
All you have done thus far is agree with me that the knowno argument is question begging, whilst also agreeing that an argument being question begging makes the argument a poor argument, but then also claiming that the knowno argument is a good argument even though it is question begging, all the while falsely accusing me of question begging.
Make it make sense. And please stop making false accusations against me.
@@jackplumbridge2704
You are really putting in the overtime on not understanding this.
For X to exist, Y cannot.
For Y to exist, X cannot.
Any argument for the existence of x must necessarily either presuppose the non-existence of y, or provide evidence of the non-existence of y, or it fails. Any argument for the existence of y faces the same hurdle.
Whether or not you use one in your argument for the other is irrelevant.
The Ontological argument is entirely conceptual, and cannot provide evidence for either x or y. Meaning the entire thing is presuppositional, and so is fallacious.
The argument for the existence of a Knowno is fallacious, but it is so for the exact same reason the Ontological argument for god is fallacious.
The point is you can use the exact same logic at the base of the Ontological argument to prove god not only doesn't exist, but can't exist.
No one is actually arguing a Knowno exists, it's simply a concept being used to expose the flaw in the argument.
Wouldn't greatest mean that god could choose to cease to exist? Why do limitations make something great? I feel this just shows the arbitrary nature of 'greatness'. Its like saying fratboyness.
Having suicidal tenses is not greatness lmao
Only a 1:20 in to the video. But I have a problem with saying God can't come into existence because then what ever created him would be better.
If we create AI and it improves its self until it completely incorporates its self into all existence and becomes god then God created its self or created a reality in which it is God aka holographic universe and the simulation theory.
But we created it?
The AI has a starting point which falls back to us creating it, hence the argument falls apart.
It is possible that a world exists in which I am God, therefore I am God in all worlds.
No actually it is logically impossible for you to be God in any possible world, sorry
We are all the manifestation of god , we are conscious/God looking at themselves
@@maxwoods767what r u smoking?
Facts
The idea of God being a necessary being seems to involve a contradiction. For a necessary being is fastened into existence and thus lacks the ability not to exist. But that's incompatible with being omnipotent. So, an omnipotent necessary being is a contradiction. God exists, but not of necessity.
So he’s contingent?
@@TNEOF20 Yes.
Your rebuttal seems off. A Knowno no matter how smart the idea .in the argument of necessity how is it necessarily necessary in any of the world. It seems for the rebuttal to be valid you would have to give a reason why the Knowno is necessary in any world not possible.
Square circle = taxi cab geometry
sitting here on the morning of my exam lol
For a Knowno to exist, you would have to agree it was possible to prove God does not exist. Are we sure that is something that can be proven?
For a God to exist, you would have to agree it was possible to prove that a Knowno does not exist. That's the point. That Ontology can't be relied on to prove one or the other. It's not about God or the Knowno, it's the method that's faulty.
@@bskec2177 I would refer you to the comment below (depending on how you view the comments) as his argument was better I felt. I love this debate though.
"I think one could argue that a Knowno is incoherent.
If a Knowno exists in a possible world, one can tie it back to the Contingency Argument for God; either the Knowno's existence is neccessary, or it is contingent on something else.
If the Knowno is itself neccessary, then it is a perfect being, in which case the Concept of a Knowno is self-contradicting.
If the Knowno is contingent on something else, then ultimately a neccessary being is needed to explain the contingent ones. In this case, the Knowno's knowledge would be incorrect and thus incoherent.
So I don't think a Knowno is a logically coherent concept"
@@brandoncinpubadj Then round and round we go. If the Contingency argument was sufficient to prove god, we wouldn't need the Ontological one. If it is possible for a world to exist without a necessary being to create it, for it to be the product of unintelligent natural forces, a Knowno could exist in that world without being either necessary or "perfect".
@@bskec2177 If you do not believe in the necessary being part, then yes. I like your argument.
I do believe a necessary/greatest possible being makes more sense to me, than nothing creating everything, from essentially nothing, for no reason other than it could. It is like entropy in reverse. It could possibly just be entropy being played out to it's inevitable ending/re-big banging. We simply do not know enough and simulation theory goes "hand-and-hand" with there being some kind of Creator of the simulation. Science does not try to answer the God question. So, I went to the next best place, Philosophy.
I am a hillbilly in Ohio though, so what do I really know. lol. I found this to be the best place to debate God, with people of reason and not just a bunch of trolls.
To say that God exists in at least one possible world as a function of his non- impossible nature is essentially saying that there is a probability associated with his existence - i.e. his existence is at least as probable as 1 in n possible worlds. So to say that he exists in every possible world world because he exists in at least one possible world is like saying that because the probability of God’s existence is at least 1% then it’s 100%. This is a non- sequitur. And I don’t believe it’s fair to say that the probability of existence is relevant to greatness. A God who exists despite an infinitesimally small probability of existing, still exists to the same degree as a god who is highly probable. In fact you could argue the opposite - i.e that the less probable one is greater because he defied greater odds, perhaps suggesting greater power. These sorts of issues are why I think philosophy is dangerous (regardless of being useful sometimes). It’s too easy to bend logic to serve a bias which then can bolster the faiths of less critical people on false grounds.
I knowno wannma :(
So God is Schrödinger's cat
Schrodinger's Bastet?
Alien with a different religion
Say O Prophet Mohammed " He is ALL-AH, THE ONE. ALL-AH IS ETERNAL , ABSOLUTE. ALLAH BEGOT NONE NOR UNBEGOTTEN(NOT BORN NOR BE BORNED) AND NOTHING IS COMPARABLE TO HIM. THAT IS OUR CREATOR ALL-AH. THE ALL AND ONE, EVERLIVING AND EVERLASTING, THE FIRST AND THE LAST. INDEED HE WAS THERE ALONE IN THE BEGINNING AND ALONE IN END. OUR GRACIOUS MERCIFUL GOD. THE FOUNDER. THE CHERISHER AND THE SUSTAINER OF ALL WORLDS, ALL-AH
Was the prophet mohammed's capsLock key broken as well?
Reverse argument...I can imagine a world where God does not exist, therefore, God does not exist. Furthermore, "greatest" is arbitrary. Lastly, you are mixing epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility.
This argument doesn't prove the existence of god, for a necessary,uncaused,intelligent being can be the big strong demon who enjoys evil.
Whether the god is good or evil is not relevant to the Ontological argument. It just proposes that the maximum imaginable being must exist, and exist in all possible worlds, and then defines that being as god. If it's an evil demon, that has no impact on the ontological argument. However, saying you think things must exist just because you can imagine them is at best a bad argument for anything.
Pretentious.
Knowno is satan, maybe? 👹😅
No, Satan believes that God exists. James 2:19
By that argument, you must accept all fictional characters as they are imagined. Don't start with this bullshit.
That's a strange way of saying "I did not understand the video"
@@Dexiteros "That's a strange way of saying "I did not understand the video"" Maybe because that's not the case. This is philosophical drek, justifying a beLIEf, nothing more.
@@frosted1030 cope
@@frosted1030 This is pure logic and u still call it belief. If logic didnt convince u, nothing will. Also, why not show where they are wrong - if u can.
@@Dexiteros "This is pure logic and u still call it belief." Kiddo, it's logical fallacy. Only an idiot promotes fallacy in a sad argument, trying to convince people of their imaginary friend.
" Also, why not show where they are wrong - if u can." LOL Sure, as soon as you stop trying to move the goalpost you are dead in the water, kid.