Why Does God's Possible Existence Mean He Must Exist?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Dr. Craig answers a question regarding the Ontological argument for God's existence.
You can watch the entire interview here: • An Interview on God's ...
#williamlanecraig #existenceofgod #apologetics #ontologicalargument
For more information visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablef...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
The thing that finally convinced me that God exists, was listening to atheists.
Ironic 😂
Lmao true
Absolutely- great point. As a weak Christian, I fall away, but I always rush back to following Christ again, after I have encountered the "love and care" atheists dish out every day. Life is hell with them. They are my best witnesses for why I and they need Jesus Christ.
@@kprosser310 May I ask why you consider yourself to be "weak"?
@@SH_space I can't speak for the other person but as a Christian I understand that the human condition is inherently weak.
I'm glad he explained that. I've always had a hard time with the Ontological argument for God's existence.
Well understandable you have a hard time, everyone has, because it is idiotic.
@@LomuHabana what's idiotic about it?
@@sgloobal2025 the fact it tries to deduce the existence of God a priori, that is without any evidence from the real world. That doesn’t work, God’s stated existence is synthetic proposition.
@@LomuHabana lets take this step by step. Is it possible god exists? Or impossible?
I always assumed this was a bad argument. I've even watched several explanations of this argument but it just never clicked..... Until now. I literally just had a mind blown moment
I appreciate you posting this I've had this question myself for some time.
You spoke for me also. WLC’s explanation makes sense and I finally understand the argument.
“He was despised and rejected- a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.”
Isaiah 53:3-12 NLT
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
God loves you so much and showed that by sending His Son to die for us so that we may inherit eternal life. We deserve hell but He gave us heaven through faith in Jesus. He took the punishment we deserved and by putting our faith in Him we can be saved. The Key To Eternal Life:
th-cam.com/video/uZdv-TtiMkg/w-d-xo.html
For evidence for Christianity check out
th-cam.com/users/drcraigvideos
and th-cam.com/users/CrossExamined
because if Jesus really rose from the dead it is the most important fact ever!
God bless y’all!
Something to note for people who are having trouble comprehending the argument is that existing necessarily is greater than existing possibly but not necessarily, so to deny the premise of a maximally great being going from merely existing in a possible world to existing in necessarily in all possible worlds is to actually deny the first premise of the argument that a maximally great being can exist at all. People who think they're disagreeing with premise 3 are usually and unknowingly actually disagreeing with premise 1.
Could you elaborate on how you derive the definition for a maximally great being (omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and has necessary existence)?
The argument merely asks us to *consider* or imagine if it is logically possible for a Being to exist that has x,y and z properties. You can posit your own properties, your own definition, and ask yourself if such a Being is logically possible. However if those properties include being omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and existing necessarily, then this Being must exist because there is no logical contradiction in such a Being having those properties. Such a Being is logically possible.
@@emailjough I have no problem with he deductive reasoning, I'm just confused about how we get the definition for maximally great being. Like why just those properties and not other properties as well? Given the incompatibility of this argument with subjective things like a maximally great pizza, I want to know why these properties are what we use.
@@orange9399 I don’t know if this might help,
But think of it this way.
What can you possibly add to those property of a maximally great being that can make him greater ?
I mean he is timeless, omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect.
@@orange9399 Alvin Plantinga offers these properties as a minimal definition for us to consider. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list nor the only possible list. 'Could a Being with these properties exist?" If yes, then that Being must exist because it would exist in every possible world, and could not fail to exist. These properties are 'objective' in the sense that it is clearly greater to be all knowing than it is to be partially ignorant; greater to be necessary than contingent, greater to be morally perfect than morally flawed, etc. It would be illogical to argue otherwise. We use these properties simply because Plantinga's version asks us to.
@@detoutetapensey one thing you could possibly add is being the Creator of a Universe *without suffering*
Or at least without *widespread suffering*
I'd like to see a rigorous refutation of the modal collapse argument against the modal ontological argument from Dr. Craig. That will be fun.
Did you have a particular modal collapse argument in mind? - RF Admin
That sad moment when the atheist realizes that to escape the fine tuning argument via multiverse hypothesis would only leave him with the ontological argument in its strongest form.
How is that a sad moment? You mean for theists? And you are misunderstanding what craig means by “World” I believe, it doesn’t mean physical, the multiverse is one world using Craig’s definition.
And besides, the multiverse is not necessary to refute the FTA.
@@LomuHabana I'm still waiting for an actual refutation of theistic arguments from you. So far, all you've posted are a lot of bellyaching complaints about theism which neither explain nor prove anything.
@@lysanderofsparta3708 There are dozens of videos refuting those arguments. Which argument are you precisely talking about?
Humble host, he doesn't pretend to know it. It's good for the listener like me hahaha
There is still one problem with this, if a being defined as necessary is possible but not actual then since he isnt actual, in the hypothetical world that he does exist it is possible for him to not exist. the latter is false therefore a being who is both possible and defined as necessary must be actual.
The theist will argue that there isnt any reason for accepting that there is no possible world where God exists and therefore he exists.
The atheist however can say the exact same thing but the other way around, if it is possible for a being defined as necessary to not exist then it follows that the being exists in no possible world
The atheist will argue that there isnt any reason for accepting that there isnt a possible world where God doesnt exist and hence theyll conclude that he does not.
Hence William Lane Craig has to refute the first premise of the reverse OA in order to hold that the OA is a good argument.
Dr. Craig has addressed this in several places, including Question of the Week #380: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/bizarro-ontological-arguments. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos yeah, with the same flawed logic. Again using existence as a predicate. His argument is basically: if you think it is possible that god doesn’t exist, then you think that maximally greatness is incoherent because maximally greatness implies necessary existence. Or equivalently, if you think it is possible for god not to exists, then you reject that (necessary) existence is an essential property (predicate). Or in short, If you think it is possible for god not to exist, the you rejected defining something into reality.
So Craig exposes himself as someone who defines something into reality.
Of all the arguments for God, this is my least favorite argument. Im sure it makes sense to Dr. Craig, but it is not my go-to argument.
That's how I feel as well.
Think of it this way…the arguments for God are cumulative. This one really forces people to either admit God exists or that God CANNOT exist. Almost all people would not agree with the idea that God can’t exist. To make the argument stronger and see where a person is at you could ask them is it likely that God exists in some possible world. Most people would be comfortable saying yea to that because in their mind it’s still a hypothetical so they would say “yeah that’s likely.”
Then you have to get them past the idea that God is just another part of this universe. So many like to claim maybe they have a belief in Soinoza’s god or maybe it’s just the universe. That’s just a way for them to avoid responsibility. There’s no threat to their personal sovereignty if God is just as much a part of this physical world than we are. If the universe goes than God goes too! He’s just like us! So ask them to describe if God is a maximally great being. If they say yes then you have them. Then you simply reiterate and help them walk through the parts they are struggling with.
Is it possible that God exists in some world?
Is God a maximally great being? Does He exist outside of time and space? (This let’s you know what their thoughts on God are)
If God is maximally great and it’s possible that He exists then He must exist and exist in all possible worlds. This point makes use of the fact that they believe that it’s possible God exists and exists in at least one possible world. If they say “No that’s not right.” Then you ask them is they still think it’s possible that God exists in at least 1 world and if it’s likely that He does. Then you take them through the implications of that thinking.
This argument is useful in getting people to a place where God is not just some hypothetical. He’s real or He isn’t. Many like to think that yeah he may exist and keep it as some kind of just a good idea. Nothing that actually effects their life. Once God is real and He really does exist then they have to strongly reconsider what they’re gonna do about that.
@@brentstewart2150 That's a decent approach.
@@brentstewart2150I don’t see how this type of argument works beyond a hypothetical discussion. Is it actually supposed to prove a god or just to get people to think?
@@therick363 what do you mean by “this type of argument?”
If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, then he exists in all possible worlds.
Conversely, if there is a possible world in which a maximally great being does not exist, then he does not exist in any possible world.
Does the concept of "possible world" include the concept of "conceivable world"?
If we merely "conceive" of a world in which a maximally great being does not exist, does it follow that he does not exist in any "possible" world?
There is much debate over the relationship between conceivability and possibility. Some have suggested that whether a conceivable state of affairs is genuinely possible depends on whether it is compatible with the class of necessary truths. Dr. Craig has responded to the same question you're asking in several places. Here's one such response:
"I think the problem with all such Bizarro ontological arguments is that your second premiss
2) But there is a possible world in which God does not exist.
begs the question by assuming that the concept of maximal greatness is incoherent. Just because we can imagine a world in which a single particle (or whatever) exists gives no reason for thinking that such a world is metaphysically possible. These scenarios are, as it were, merely pictures with a title underneath “World in which Only a Single Particle Exists.” The fact that I can imagine and label such pictures gives no reason at all to declare them metaphysically possible. To do that, you have to know first that maximal greatness is impossible."
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/bizarro-ontological-arguments
- RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Thank you for your reply.
Help. I don’t get this, and it looks like from his expression at the end that the person WLC was talking to didn’t either. I don’t get the jump from existence in every possible world to actually existing in our world, exactly like the person in the video. None of the comments have helped. Help! What isn’t clicking for me?
Can God transcend the boundaries of modal logic?
I don't understand how God's existence can flow over from one possible world to another, since the point of use of possible worlds modality is to differentiate between several distinctly different possible worlds. Is it permissable to let the implications of one possible world to have influence on another district one?
Btw, I do hold to the modal ontological argument. Just raising questions
Nobody in this video stated anything about God's existence "flowing" anywhere.
@@1godonlyone119 haha what's true is true! Just put "extend" or "transcend" for "flow", then it might be clearer.
Yeah I was wondering the same thing but I wasn’t able to put it into words. Also I want to see Craig respond to the necessary existence of other maximally great things that are possible. I will keep searching!
@@DustinDeVito Only one maximally great being is possible.
@@SomeGuyFromSomeEarth Dr Craig may have used the word transcend, yeah.
Took me a while to understand this one too.
praise the only true living LORD and GOD bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY forever and ever amen 💖✝️✝️✝️
When you arrive in the kingdom, you will discover that God has always been a family, (elohim), not a trinity. Believing God is a trinity, is disenfranchisement of the other holy spirits, and archangels, of the God family, who also had missions, and ministry to carry out for God.
Small problem. In the history of Christianity, the trinity was surmised by men, not scripture. No need to thank me, your salvation is still available.
why can’t an atheist just say it’s possible god doesn’t exist, therefore god doesn’t exist
He can set up the same flawed ontological argument as Craig, to arrive at the opposite conclusion.
He can.
But the proposition "it is possible that God does not exist" can only be true if God's existence is impossible.
The atheist has to defend the claim that God's existence is impossible. That it is necessarily true that God does not exist.
@@jackplumbridge2704 i can argue the same though. the proposition "it is possible god exists" can only be true is god's non-existence is impossible. the theist has to defend the claim that god's non-existence is impossible. that it is necessarily true that god exists.
@@jeromemosk5028 "the theist has to defend the claim that god's non-existence is impossible. that it is necessarily true that god exists." - No, we don't. And this is precisely what the modal ontological argument demonstrates. The theist does not need to defend the claim "God necessarily exists". The theist only needs to defend the claim "God possibly exists".
The atheist, therefore, has to defend the claim "God does not possibly exist" or to put it another way "it is impossible that God exists".
I don't think you are appreciating the asymmetry between "possible" and "impossible". You seem to think they are the same claim being made on either end of the spectrum, but this is not the case. Let me rephrase the claims in probabilistic terms to make this very obvious:
It is necessary that God exists = The proposition "God exists" is 100% probable.
It is possible that God exists = The proposition "God exists" is >0% probable.
It is impossible that God exists = The proposition "God exists" is 0% probable.
It should go without saying that when we assess the truth or likelihood of a proposition being true, we weigh the evidence for and against the proposition and make a probabilistic assessment of whether the proposition is true or false.
Some other probabilistic assessments put into numerical form would be as follows:
It is probable that God exists = The proposition "God exists" is >50% probable.
It is improbable that God exists = The proposition "God exists" is
I think the fastest way to explain this is: defining god into existence with language
No, but it may be the fastest way to strawman the argument. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos here is the argument:
God is defined as maximally great
A property of greatness is existence
Therefore god exists necessarily
Therefore god exists
I have just used language to define god into existence. Tada! The ontological argument.
@@MrMattSax But that's not the argument at all. The first premise is "It is possible that a maximally great being exists." This is a modal premise, not a premise of definition. The rest of the argument follows logically. So the question is does such a being possibly exist? In order to deny this premise, one needs to show that such a being is impossible. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos yes, it is another word game used to define god into existence. By saying it is “possible” you are saying, it “can be imagined”. So we are now imagining a world where an imaginary being has the quality of “maximal greatness”, which is also an imagined characteristic. Since “greatness” cannot be objectively defined, observed, demonstrated, and used to make novel predictions it literally just is, like, your opinion, man. So we can imagine a being, attribute imaginary characteristics to that being, and then this allows us to turn that imagined being into something real.
@@MrMattSax That is not how possibility is defined. It is not "can be imagined," but rather "capable of being actual." A married bachelor is not possible because such a thing is not capable of being actual.
Maximal greatness, contrary to your objections, seems perfectly coherent. It is obviously greater to be omnipotent than to have limited power. It is great to be omniscient than to have limited knowledge. And so on.
So, in order to defeat the argument, one would need to show that a maximally great being could not possibly exist. - RF Admin
It seems to me that St. Anselm of Canterbury took it upon himself to tell the "Maximally Great Being" (MGB) what He had to be in order to exist. What if the MGB is omnipotent, omniscient, and Maximally Evil?
Happiness in your life disproves maximal evil.
What’s the difference between something existing contingently and necessarily….i don’t understand that.
If I understand Swinburne correctly, he doesn’t think God exists necessarily. Does he not affirm the ontological argument?
I still can't wrap my head around it
Well said and we’ll explained. The definition of God simply means he exists necessarily
@1:39 “another way of saying that is to say if Gods existence is possible then it follows that God exists” uh. After I heard that I looked like 😵💫 Can someone explain? Couldn’t the atheist use the same logic and say “if God existence isn’t possible then it follows that God doesn’t exist” ? Or any combination of words like that?
because no one can really know for sure that something doesn't exist.
It's not the same logic though. If it is true that something cannot exist, then yeah, it doesn't exist. However, the opposite isn't simultaneously true -- ie, just because something can exist doesn't mean that it does exist. For example, it's possible for a million dollars to exist in my bank account... but sadly it doesn't. The ontological argument establishes that while God's existence is possible, it's also necessary based on the properties of that being. FWIW, despite eons of trying, no atheist has successfully made an argument that proves God cannot exist.
@@rickbays1608 If this is a good argument I would like to use it. But I have to fully understand the argument before I can use it on an Atheist. Your statement, “The ontological argument establishes that while God's existence is possible, it's also necessary based on the properties of that being.” Then can that same argument be said in context what you mentioned about the million dollars, thus, “The ontological argument establishes that while a million dollars existence is possible, it's also necessary based on the properties of that being. (?)
@@TheLawRival sure, but all you've done is swapped out one term for another -- the maximally greatest million dollars being would just be God by another name. I think what you're asking is "can a million dollars in my pocket be the maximally greatest being, and then can we say the million dollars in my pocket must exist because existence > non existence?" The answer is "no" because, for starters, the million dollars doesn't have omniscience -- and omniscience > non omniscience. So, your million dollars can't be the maximally greatest being. Make sense? Now, if we amend the million dollar argument to say the million dollars is a being that has all those same maximally greatest attributes that God does, then all we've done is swapped out terms and yes the million dollars must exist in your pocket -- but now it's really just God by a different name. Sadly, you still don't end up with the cash in your pocket because the re-defining of the million dollars into the maximally greatest being included immaterial > material and omnipresence > non omnipresence.
@@rickbays1608 sorry, don’t mean to badger you with these questions but can we go back to the original statement that Craig said, “another way of saying that is to say if Gods existence is possible then it follows that God exists”. There has to be more to the statement then what is said. I’m not getting this in a logical order. If I use that statement on a non-believer I’ll be forced to explain it which I can’t.
@drcraigvideos I think the interviewer was trying to say that how are you concluding that God exists in 1 possible world . This is the jump he didn’t understand & it’s the jump where I don’t understand either. I agree if he does exist in 1 possible world then he exists in all. But how u know he exists in 1 possible world & what evidence do you have that he exists in 1 possible world?
The big question is “if” a God exists in 1 possible world. Then u jump to God “does” exist in 1 possible world. U see the jump you’ve made? I feel this needs to be addressed. Note:I am a Christian & would love to use this argument but first I need clarity on this before I can use it !
Saying that God's exists in a possible world is just another way of saying that God's existence is possible.
So if God's existence is possible then it is definitionally true that he exists in some possible world.
Oh boy, this is gonna be a good one. I almost don’t want to logically pick it apart because, it’s too easy to.
It appears you know some physics. Would you say you know basic astrophysics reasonably well?
@@20july1944 Huh? I said nothing about physics.
@@Homo_sAPEien You comment on physics on a couple of your other videos, I visited your page.
Are you unfamiliar with basic physics? Perhaps I misunderstood.
@@Homo_sAPEien Here you answer "questions about physics": th-cam.com/video/OJiRrkvQ2ic/w-d-xo.html
@@20july1944 What statement of mine are you addressing?
I just had the same doubt... right on time.
Yup, the atheist would have to show that necessary existence is impossible, which doesn't seem to be correct. Everything about necessary existence seems to be logical and non-contradictory.
So, this argument is, at least, really interesting.
This argument presupposes a particular definition of God and then reaches a conclusion valid only for this particular definition. In this case it's the Christian God. The problem is that we see in human existence many definitions of God, and there is good reason to believe that there are possibilities for a God outside of the intellectual capabilities of humans. I believe that it is possible that such a God exists and because I cannot fully comprehend this God Dr. Craig's reasoning does not apply.
The host is clearly confused and unsatisfied by Dr. Craig's explanation.
But to say it's possible that he exists what makes it possible. Doesn't that mean he's contingent if it's possible for him to exist ..just wondering what others think
Possible existence doesn't mean contingent. To say something is possible is to say it is not impossible.
Everything that actually exists is possible. If something were not possible, then it could not exist, as its existence would be impossible.
Actual things are a subset of possible things. Everything that is actual is possible, but Everything that is possible is not actual.
Does that explanation help?
I guess the whole argument fails with the definition 'Maximal Great Being' ... for me a MGB would be something i cannot think about, i cannot immagine and cannot conceive. Otherwise its limited by my poor human abilities to think, to imagine etc and not maximal. So to me its illusionary to come to any conclusion about it. Doesn't disproof the possibility of a God = MGB but (to my personal opinion) removes the credibility of any statement about it.
Believe what you want, in the end it remains a belief that cant be proved or disproofed (at least with this argument)
another point where i'm a little be confused, is the 'possibility'
maybe thats again some kind of definition problem, but doesn't the existence of XY automatically remove the possibility of this existence? If something exists, then its impossible for it to possibly exist, because its exists. Isn't to say something 'possibly exists' the same as I don't know wether it exists or not? Following the argument, this would mean: I dont know if XY exists, this means it must exist. sounds strange to me
A possible world is not necessarily an actual world. Possibility and actuality are not the same. You’re making an irrational leap there.
Tell me you understand the argument without telling me you don't understand the argument. Dr Craig is perfectly aware that possible is not synonymous with actual. He made the distinction very clear in the argument.
@@leonardu6094 he’s still making a leap that has no justification. He’s making an assertion with no evidence. By his reasoning, you can replace “God” with “2 Gods” or “6 Gods” or “cheese wheel” and leave every other word exactly as he stated and you’d have to accept them all as true. But, none of this is sound. He’s just asserting it.
You're right. At 4:37, there is a jump.
With premise 2, to say "if God possibly exists, then He exists in a possible world" is a jump.
"God possibly exists", in the 1st half of premise 2 is being replaced with "He exists" in the 2nd half of premise 2 which is misleading...a jump. The 2nd half should say "He POSSIBLY exists in some possible world.
Then, this error is carried into the next premises which leads to premise 7 concluding with "therefore, God exists".
@@TheGuy.. the problem there then is that Craig hasn’t given any evidence that god possibly exists. That has to be proven, too. How do you prove that god possibly exists? That’s a claim he’s making that has no evidence.
@@FuzzyChesterfield I think there is plenty of evidence that "points" to God.
I just recognize that this argument slips in a circular claim and for some reason people are trying to say that if there is a possibility of a maximally great being, then there is an actuality (premise 7) of that maximally great being.
Some arguments for God are reasonable but I find that this one is not.
“Maximumly great” is redundant.
No, "maximally" isn't a synonym for "great". What are you talking about?
Something or someone can be "great" without being the "greatest". "Maximally" adds a non-redundant specification to "great"; it means that nothing else could be even more great.
@@20july1944 “Maximumly” means “to the greatest degree.”
@@LawlessNate “Maximumly” means “to the greatest degree” so, it’s redundant to add “great.”
Does one version use necessity and the other version uses "maximally great"
I still don't get it.
the necessary existence doesn't follow from the premises, it was added later by a modification of the definition of "great maximal being".
Yes it does.
@@1godonlyone119 why? I'm very interested to this argument. Even in the university I didn't understand it.
@@FrancisMetal Why what?
@@FrancisMetal Existing > Non Existing
@@rickbays1608 and so?
Brilliant!
I don't understand this argument because God is only a being with maximum power and is necessary IF he exists, but this doesn't apply to possible worlds (if they don't exist). Maybe I'm missing something.
I think you have your predicates flipped: God is a maximally powerful being which by definition necessarily exists. If there were a possible world where contingencies could render God non-existent or impotent, then that being would not be maximally powerful, "something" thwarts" His power or being, and thus the idea itself is incoherent. That's what I think atheist's want to say or postulate.. Look for the 'a-ha' feeling in this rather than use language to knock it down before understanding. It's like a metaphysical meta-axiom that's hyper-real and probably relates deeply into science in more ways than the world is ready for, for now.
Dr Craig is not referring to any world that does not exist in this argument.
@@jeffreyjdesir the issue I have is when someone (not picking on you mate just copying) saying “by definition necessary exists” and thinking that’s all they need. I don’t see how that somehow make it a fact of reality. Is there more? Because I’ve yet to be convinced.
Now I think it’s also important to point out that this isn’t an easy consent to understand and we can see this true because many fail to grasp the concept which I think leads to atheism. Failure to grasp such concepts leaves atheism a viable option
This concept is fallacious, so if people understand the reasoning of it, they see it as the bs it is. The danger is that it turns secular people into religious people when they are not thinking this nonsense through.
@@LomuHabana What in heaven's name are you ranting and raving about?
@@lysanderofsparta3708 ranting? The ontological argument is just nonsense.
@@LomuHabana That proves nothing. Do you actually have a valid counter-argument? Or are you just here to spew and vent?
@@lysanderofsparta3708 I have given one under another comment, not my problem if you are to lazy to read.
The major premise is basically hinged on S5: p -> [](p) -> []p
The objection could simply be that so long as God is possible, then it follows that it's possibly ~God. If possibly ~God, then necessarily ~God.
but if the concept of God is coherent therefore it is possible
@@FrancisMetal and how is that at odds with my comment?
What is the argument supporting your last assertion?
@@magne6049 de morgans law
@@Florianuus that can’t be true. You say that «If possibly not God, then necessarily not God». Which has no backing foundation, or relation to De Morgan’s Law.
De Morgan's Law is simply that «the complement of the union of two sets will be equal to the intersection of their individual complements».
Elon Musk interviews WLC???!!!?
“Possibility” is a concept relative to a person’s knowledge. Only one, of the alternative possibilities, ever actually happens. And, the other guy is correct that ur making a “jump”, when you go from “he exists in some possible worlds,” to “he exists in all possible worlds.” I presume that Dr. Craig doesn’t claim that everything that’s possible happens. And, he fails to elaborate on what “maximumly great” means and how it redeems the jump made. The fact, that believers resort to this argument, is an embarrassment and is, in and of itself, evidence against God’s existence.
Are you aware that the sun converts 5.5 million tonnes of matter into energy every second?
That's basic physics that a guy who can answer physics questions should know.
@@20july1944 Ok?
@@Homo_sAPEien Do you accept that, or wish to contest it?
@@20july1944 You would need to provide sources, in order for me to accept it. However, I’m unable to contest it.
This pretty easy to debunk. It would be a logically impossible for maximally great being to not exist in every possible world.
The fact, that believers resort to this argument, is an embarrassment and, in and of itself, evidence against God’s existence.
I rely on physics and thermodynamics for my strong evidence for God.
Are you educated enough to discuss some basic physics?
@@20july1944 No.
@@Homo_sAPEien I don't think the argument is evidence that God doesn't exist. It's just evidence of a flawed argument.
Kai Nielsen, who was actually an atheist philosopher has noted, "to show an argument to be invaded or unsound, is not to show that the conclusion of the argument to be false. All the arguments for the existence of God can fail but it still may be the case that God exists".
@@Homo_sAPEien Then your opinion has no weight.
@@TheGuy.. Yes, the important question of God's existence can't be dispositively resolved, merely approached seeking the preponderance of evidence.
But God doesn't exist in a world, he's above all.
You've misunderstood the way in which Dr. Craig and other philosophers use the term "world," which in this case means "a maximal description of the way reality might be." If God exists, then he is part of reality and therefore is part of the world in this sense. For more on this, see the following Defenders class by Dr. Craig: www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-excursus-on-natural-theology/existence-of-god-part-23. - RF Admin
Im confused about what he means by a “possible world” I wish he would explain that concept in a more elementary way for lament like myself haha.
"Possible world" means "possible state of affairs, possible all-encompassing reality." Nothing to do with a planet and not even necessarily a whole universe, but absolutely everything including things like a multiverse.
A possible world is a world that could have existed, but doesn't. Each possible world is considered as separate from the other possible worlds.
One way that might help you understand it is this: imagine a multiverse, where there are multiple universes existing at the same time. But instead of each universe being a real entity, only one of them is real and the other ones are hypothetical. Those hypothetical universes are possible worlds, and the real one is the real world.
I'd like to know if that helps, because if not, we could try a different explanation. But the way to understand these philosophical concepts is always going to be to look up how the professionals explain them.
@@cmk5724 yes thank you for providing clarity on the matter, I greatly appreciate it :)
@@sirmrs6952 Cool.
I'm a Christian and WLC fan but I don't see ANY merit to this argument.
However, I don't even respect philosophy and I may well be missing something vital.
Atheists use multiverse hypothesis as an argument against the existence of God. This counters that argument while showing the extremes atheists are willing to go to in order to deny the existence of God.
The argument basically suggests that the atheist needs to prove that God cannot exist in ANY possible world. It's the ontological argument - which suggests that if we can prove that God *might* exist, then God *must* exist. I've had a hard time understanding this one too don't worry.
May I ask why you don't respect philosophy?
@@wjckc79 Agreed -- the multiverse model only mitigates the fine-tuning issue, not the question of the ultimate origin of all these putative universes.
@@SH_space Oh -- THAT I can absorb and put flesh on.
I don't accept the ontological argument but -- again -- I may well be missing something, and I can see how this twist on that question would put the burden of proof on the denier, although I wouldn't find it compelling.
I don't respect philosophy because most philosophical arguments I hear sound like matters of opinion but also are so subtle that they take too much insight/introspection/training to appreciate even if they're true.
I refer you to my channel "about" paragraph:
"Just another bitter, fist-shaking Skraeling on TH-cam.
"If I say anything that seems harsh, you should assume I meant it even MORE harshly, AND directed it at YOU personally!
"My two-step argument for Christianity that doesn't rely on Biblical inerrancy:
"1. The universe had an absolute beginning in the finite past or it would already be in heat death, because that's how stars work -- turning insane amounts of matter into energy every second since the first star ignited, while nothing IN NATURE turns energy into matter. This points to a Creator.
"2. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, all we have is c. 15 VERY despondent followers, so what would happen next to spark a new religion?
"As Jews they wouldn't want to FALSELY claim Jesus was the Messiah, that would be blasphemy vs YHWH.
"At most His followers would form a new rabbinic school embracing His new ethical teachings.
"Clearly something much more extreme happened, to have Saul persecuting DAMASCUS Christians only a few years later."
Its best to think of it as a bear-trap argument. Say that an Atheist/Agnostic and I agree that if God exists, then God is a maximally great being: Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Eternal, Necessarily existent, etc. We may reach this agreement because there is no logical incoherence with the concept of a Maximally great being (Though this is sometimes argued)
Now, with possible world semantics (which we use as a fiction of discussion to better understand model logic) if we grant that God is possible, then he exists in a "possible world". If he were not possible, then he would not exist in any "possible world"
However, by granting God's possibly existing, we commit ourselves to the possibility of a necessarily existent being. Possibly necessary reduces in modal logical to necessary. Therefore, from God's possibly existing, we conclude that God exists necessarily.
The crux of this argument is that if there is no logical incoherence with a maximally great being, then the being must necessarily exist.
This is particularly troubling, because the only premise that one can feasibly attack is the idea of God (or a maximally great being) possibly existing. However, to argue that a maximally great being is logically incoherent (like a square circle) is a herculean task. One becomes committed to the idea that in order to reject the existence of a maximally great being, they must claim that such a being is Impossible, which is a must stronger/radical claim which is difficult to substantiate
If this is what passes for logic, and people actually buy this, this doesn’t say much for Christian thinkers.
Wordplay isn’t philosophy and it isn’t logic. He redefined words and makes leaps with his redefined words. That’s nothing less than desperate.
This is a new low in “reason”. This is so embarrassing I can’t believe it was posted as an example of a good argument for a god. It only makes Craig look like he’s losing his mind.
Tip to anyone who wants to use this on an atheist, or anyone else: plan to look really stupid.
We hear your insult but no argument.
@@kiwisaram9373 I’m not trying to make an argument. If you can’t see the blatant problem here, then you are wanting what he is saying to be true, but not thinking through the logic.
Read. Learn. Study. Mull. You are correct. I didn’t give the argument. I’m not here to spoon feed answers. We should all feel (myself included) a certain uncomfortably with our beliefs, knowing that we don’t know everything. We need to take responsibility.
Listen to the statement he is making. Think through what he is doing. It is essentially a “trick” or entrapment question based on an assumption he doesn’t believe exists, and a redefinition of vocabulary. Listen. Ponder. Don’t just snap back at me. It doesn’t hurt my feelings, and I don’t have a need for you to know the truth, but I hope you do for yourself. I’d prefer that people think deeply and not just buy what is being sold by me or anyone else.
I was a Christian for over 40 years. I get this need to have everything explained to me by an apologist so I feel good about my faith.
Even if there were a god, his implied practical application of reasoning is faulty by redefining, the use of wordplay, and an assumption which he doesn’t even believe, and neither do more than 99.9% of atheists. He has devised a question that is designed to mislead someone in an effort to instill doubt on a false premise.
That is the hint I give. Think people. Ponder. Study. Learn. Learn the positions of those you disagree with at a far deeper level than they understand their positions themselves. Go deeper than looking for arguments to support your faith. Yes, that is a starting point, but don’t let that be where your intellect stops interacting.
In court, a good lawyer should be able to argue the other client’s case BETTER than that other lawyer if they are to truly find solid, viable counterpoints.
Study philosophy and rhetoric. Understand what Craig is doing. He knows what he is doing. He himself is giving a hint as to the fact that he has devised a question he finds clever and easily misunderstood. Notice his mischievous grin. He’s giving a hint that he has devised a puzzle, purposefully obscure.
He isn’t helping his audience by not explaining it because Christians will try to use this question on others. Most of the time it will befuddle the person being questioned, but on false logic. However, when used on a deep thinker, the person putting forth such an argument would look foolish at best or deceitful at worst.
What he did was clever, and I definitely appreciate the question for how he meant to use it which is to obscure and confuse. It obviously does that.
I gave some explicit hints. He gave body language to hint that there is a bit of a shell game he is playing. Either way, challenge it in your mind repeatedly until you understand his goal with the question.
I am a teacher. Sometimes I will give a student the answer, but I typically try to lead students through a thought process that lets them find that the answer presents itself. Then, students have truly learned to think more deeply, able to see what they couldn’t before.
I wish you well in your continued journey. Hopefully we are all learning, pushing ourselves to the point of being uncomfortable. Don’t let the notion of accepting something on faith be the end. Let it be a beginning, a way to start testing the proposition.
Muslims, for instance, take their beliefs on faith. Is that good? Is it faith, or that in which faith is placed that is most important? Christians, believers in Hinduism, other religion, and even atheists like myself also rely on faith.
Faith, however, should only be a starting point, not a place to rest. NEVER BE CONTENT TO LIVE EVEN A MOMENT WITH A FAITH THAT IS UNCHALLENGED BY OURSELVES AND OTHERS. To be sure that one is placing faith in a true belief, it must be assaulted, attacked, ridiculed and insulted within one’s self, and yes, often by others. This process isn’t to be feared. That which is true will easily handle such an onslaught. That which is false will be exposed.
I will leave you with a final hint in the form of several thought provoking question. Is there such a thing as the reality of the real existence of all possible realities? Put another way, do all possible realities exist as a reality, not simply as possibility? Does the conceiving of a possible reality therefore make it a reality?
@@singwithpowerinfo5815 Thank you for your sales letter. But I don’t buy it. You have no argument.
Your questions at the end reveal you haven’t understood the premises of the Ontological argument (like the concept of ‘necessary existence’). Study it some more. This process isn’t to be feared, as you said.
@@magne6049 The concept of necessary existence is fine, but it is often too narrowly applied by those that use it. Anyway, as I said, I’m not here to debate. There are plenty of debates already out there to watch that cover these same topics.
@@magne6049 By the way, my questions at the end we’re making your exact point. The questions were posed to reveal their very absurdity. You actually made my point.
You didn't answer his question, how do we go from possibly exists (1), too therefore he does exist (2). You skipped to 3, 4... What makes possible (1) equal does (2)?
It's possible that God doesn't exist. But, I do then say therefore God does not exist, that's to great a leap. It's possible that Cthulhu exists. The Ontological Argument does not necessarily prove that the God that exists is the Abrahamic God.
Hail Hydra!
He builds upon a fallacy. The ontological argument has been debunked by famous philosopher and genius Kant in the 18th century.
The ontological argument for god uses “existence” as a predicate/essential property. Meaning, existence is a property you can add to an object, and that enlarges the object. Kant showed that this makes no sense. Consider any Object O, assume you can add the existence property to it. Does Object O exist? No it can’t, because if it does, then it is the object O plus the existence property that exists. If you take away the existence property, you must conclude that O doesn’t exist.
Or in simple words, the existence of an object doesn’t change the essence of an object, it is not NECESSARY that an object exists. It can, or it cannot exist. That is something we SHOW.
As an example, take a green chair. Green is an essential property, a green chair wouldn’t be a green chair if it wasn’t green. But existence? A green chair is still a green chair whether there are any green chairs in this universe or not. Saying “an existing green chair” is nonsensical. It doesn’t need to exist, nor does it come in existence if we say so.
Back to the argument of Craig, don’t get fooled by “all-powerful” and “perfect” as properties, in essence, it is an object like the green chair, an object which may or may not exist. He says if god exists in some possible worlds (that is semantically the same as possible existence of god), then, because god is perfect (and that includes necessary existence), he must exist in all worlds otherwise he wouldn’t be perfect/almighty. But as shown above, you cannot simply attribute existence to god, that is nonsensical. You’d have to proof empirically that god exists.
So essentially, the argument is defining god into existence.
I hope it is a little clearer now, otherwise, you can ask.
And you are right that this argument works in the other direction as well and is actually more convincing.
Say it is possible that god doesn’t exist, then god doesn’t exist in some possible world.
If god doesn’t exist in a possible world, then it means that he is not perfect (because he lacks necessary existence in all worlds), and because god is defined as perfect, he cannot exist in any possible world (because if he exists in any possible world, he exists in all possible worlds). Because god doesn’t sist in any world, he doesn’t exist in our world, so god doesn’t exist!
Well if you reason like theists, I have good news for you, Hydra exists!
I’ll prove it based on the premise that it is possible that hydra exists.
For that matter, consider the most realistic version of Hydra.
If it is possible that this most realistic version of hydra exists, then it exists in some possible world.
But since we defined hydra as the most realistic version, our Hydra must exist in the most realistic world. What is the most realistic world? Our world! So our Hydra exists in our world. And since a our version of a Hydra is still a Hydra, Hydra exists!
So if it is possible that our most realistic version of Hydra exists, Hydra exists!
I think that could be an argument that works in a multiverse but not in a universe. But it is a substantial argument nonetheless.
The argument doesn’t work in either. A “possible world” would include all of the multiverse. “World” means maximal description of reality or something in that way.
@@LomuHabana our reality
@@LeafSouls yeah exactly, that includes all of the multiverse.
@@LomuHabana what makes you sure that there is no different reality with different laws and that ours is not relative?
@@LomuHabana what is meant by reality is a different universe or some of he sort anyway not literally everything, but even if that is meant the argument still stand as god still remains possible
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
In other words, atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist unless they can prove that he can't exist, which they can't, because can't is a higher burden of proof than doesn't.
And theists can’t prove that god does exists
In science proofing that something can’t or doesn’t exist is mostly the same thing.
@@therick363 What the existence of theists doesn't prove, the ontological argument does prove.
@@LomuHabana But this is in the arena of philosophy.
@@dcouric it relies on quasi logic, if you want to prove that god does not exist, you’d have to use science, either logic/maths or empirics/physics.
A “possible” god is not the God of the Bible.
The God of the bible, DEFINITELY exists.
Ego eimi - I am or I exist
Everything which is actual is also possible. If something is impossible, then it cannot be actual. God is actual, therefore God is also possible. Perhaps you are confused in thinking that "possible" means something like "not actual." - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos
The God of the bible is not a possibility. He is a “Must” or a “definite”.
Possible indicates that it could be actual and it could also mean not actual.
A definite cannot be possible. For example, if you definitely responded to my post, you didn’t at the same time possibly do it.
@@drcraigvideos
Hello!!!! maybe Dr Craig could respond to my question.
Is the ontological argument circular because it assumes a maximally great being can posses existence. Like why can’t a maximally great being just exist as a thought?
It’s hard to explain in text but it’s like the ontological argument assumes that Existence is something great.
I don’t know if that makes sense to you it’s just it’s really hard to explain via text.
@@Dandymancan The first premise just asserts that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist. The reason that a maximally great being couldn't just exist as a thought is because thoughts are not independently existing beings, but are always possessed by personal agents. Clearly, a maximally great being would not itself be possessed by a personal agent.
The negation of existence is non-existence. If something is to be great, much less maximally great, it must first be a thing. A non-existent thing (that is, the absence of a thing) cannot possibly be maximally great. - RF Admin
I'll be honest, to jump from a possibility God exists to His definite existence based on His necessity to exist doesn't persuade me bcuz it excludes a possible world existing without that necessary being. I prefer the Entity Ontological model based on the attributes of ultimate necessary existence as a more persuasive and coherent argument for God's existence.
There wouldn't be any possible worlds without His definite existence because thats what the definition of God is. A being higher than all existence. But I get it this is a confusing one to grasp it took me a while.
if it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then they exist in at least one possible world. if they exist in one possible world then they must exist in all possible worlds because existing in all possible worlds is greater than existing in one.
@@stephentoons This is the simple explanation that I was surprised Craig didn't just say in the video. I think it was the idea of "necessary existence" that was confusing the host.
@@cmk5724 i also did not understand why Craig went with necessary existence. but there may be more than one approach with regard to maximally greatness
@@stephentoons how do you know that if it’s possible for something to exist that therefore it must exists in at least 1 possible world. I’m sick of hearing this jump which is nothing but assumption. HOW. Just HOW do u know. It’s possible I’ll wake up tomorrow with an extra eyeball, does this mean that in some other possible world I have an extra eyeball? And if so, what evidence do u have to support this assumption. This is where the argument falls apart to me so if u could please address it id be happy
The only place God exists is in your head.
You defined greatest as including the property existing in all possible worlds, this is invented and not an objective logical definition and so has no certain necessary affect on reality . I'm a theist even a Christian but this, ontological, is a terrible argument. We should never use it. I'm a huge fan of William, but each time he runs a lap around this circle he embarrasses himself.
If a maximally great being exists, shouldn't it, by definition, be able to exist in ANY world or dimension? I think part of the argument implies that it's limiting to say that a maximally great being can exist in only one world.
@@SH_space Correct. It is not WLC who is embarrassing himself.