AZ Outcast Watch the debate actually. As much as I adore Hitch, he clearly lost that one. He was not committing himself to the topic, rambling between different subjects, completely ignoring what Craig said - and this was especially frustrating during the rebuttal. He did not address any single point made by Craig. The fact that what he said was true is irrelevant - if you agree to debate on a topic, you obliged to stick to that and to address the points made by your opponent. The rest is irrelevant. I'm not sure about the reasons, maybe he didn't feel well (he was clearly sweating like hell), maybe something else.. But it was painful to watch. Now I'm not saying that Craig made any valid points or that he was right. But in order to show that, you have to address the actual points and you have to play by the rules of the debate. Hitch failed at it, while Craig at least presented structured (but unsound) arguments. And that, my friend, IS a lost debate.
Or just philosophy in general. Where I live (Canada), philosophy of any sort is, it seems, not a required class, and only actually offered in post-secondary. That leaves a lot of people with uncultivated critical thinking faculties, not helped by much of education being information regurgitation.
@@TyDreacon I wouldn’t say critical thinking has to come from talking a philosophy course whatsoever, although I do think it is one of the most important skills to have in life
@@Jonathan-A.C. exactly. I never took philosophy classes, but ALL of my subjects in highschool, especially the last two years, went out of their way to try and cultivate our critical thinking, essentially making it a requirement for good academic performance.
Mathematical proof classes are probably even better. Problem is they're tough. Our curriculum has logical formal geometric proofs, which isn't a bad start.
@@theboombody I was going to say mathematical proof after seeing this comment too! I didn't enjoy the formal geometric proofs I did in school. We had to draw a table and list the steps, and it felt very restricting. I didn't enjoy proofs until sets and functions were in the theorems, and proofs were more like paragraphs.
CosmicSkeptic, yeah I hardly could sit through all the convolutions. The most interesting thing for me is that it proves that cosmic skeptics existed even centuries ago when there were no scientific explanations for the world worth the name. In fact, why should Anselm devise an argument to prove the existence of God if nobody contested it?
No, because that would be a married Bachelor, not a married bachelor. However, what if a man is married and he holds a bachelor of science? Does that make him a married bachelor? Yes and no. The problem is that Alex does not define what he means by bachelor. It's clear what he is implying in reference to the paradox, but he never explicitly states this.
A unmarried married man, then. The paradox isn't in the words, it's in the definition. 'A' cannot possibly NOT be 'A' But you're probably just joking anyways :p
@NotACapitalist The one true God who has revealed Himself in Scripture. There is ample evidence for God. The ressurection of Christ being the clearest among them. The evidence is clear and certain but you reject it. What you are about to ask me to do is prove the evidence from your worldview. But your worldview is incoherent so if I adopted it, I would prove nothing. This is why you have to constantly borrow from my worldview to live every day. For example, you rely on science, but in order to do so you assume the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. You have 0 foundation to affirm these things. After all, if we are just highly evolved mammals who've adapted to our environment so as to survive, why should we assume our minds are geared toward truth? All our thoughts are just determined outcomes based on the laws of physics and chemistry. You and a person with what we would call a mental disorder just have chemicals bouncing around differently than the other's. You have no basis, given your absurd worldview, upon which to judge who is correct in any given conflict. So you have not. basis to criticize my reasoning since it is just chemicals moving as they are determined. So no sir. I will not adopt your worldview to give you evidence because your worldview will never allow you to interpret the evidence correctly. You have given up knowledge and logic at the alter of your infidelity. But there is a way out. I'm sure you're a nice guy with all sorts of talents and good character traits. That's because God loves you. He made you wonderfully. Trust in Him and you will have a foundation to do all the things you love. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
@NotACapitalist I will not talk with you further since it would be fruitless. You so pridefully argue, so sure of yourself, to establish what conclusion? That you are ultimately insignificant and purposeless. You make yourself a god and a mere animal at the same time. The absurdity is unbelievable. Everything you say just exposes your suppression of the truth. You know who God is. Repent and believe the gospel.
@@joshtrusts Oh dear here we go again lots of evidence for god then fuck all to back that bollocks up ! hmm To follow that up with saying that atheists have a world view wow strawman much ! As for interpreting evidence ha ha ha typical theist dancing with reality and falling back into delusion.
“The picture of the world with which naturalism presents us, we should also recall, is not the phenomenal world we all experience but rather an intuition of its hidden principles, a supposition regarding its secret essence. It is not the case that, as we sometimes lazily assume, materialism is a natural default position for our thinking because we have direct knowledge only of the material order. There are, for one thing, inherent logical difficulties in the materialist position that make it anything but a natural picture of the world, as I have noted and will note again. There are, as well, innumerably many things we know (take the truths of mathematics, for instance) that are not material realities in any meaningful sense. More to the point, though, we have no actual direct experience of the material world as such at all, at least not as pure materialism depicts it. Our primordial experience of reality is an immediate perception of phenomena-appearances, that is-which come to us not directly through our senses, but through sensations as interpreted by thought, under the aspect of organizing eidetic patterns. We do not encounter the material substrate of things, but only the intelligible forms of things, situated within an interdependent universe of intelligible forms, everywhere governed by purposes: organic, artificial, moral, aesthetic, social, and so forth. We know, also, that those forms are not simple structural aggregates of elementary physical realities, as if atoms were fixed components stacked one upon another like bricks until they added up to stable physical edifices; the forms remain constant, while atomic and subatomic reality is in perpetual flux and eludes that sort of local composition altogether. Phenomenal forms and the quantum realm upon which they are superimposed do not constitute a simple, unilinear, mechanical continuum. And even in the purely physiological realm, we have no direct knowledge of unguided material forces simply spontaneously producing the complex order that constitutes our world. A mere agitation of molecules, for instance, does not simply “amount to” a game of chess, even though every physical structure and activity involved in that game may be in one sense reducible without remainder to molecules and electrical impulses and so on; it is not the total ensemble of those material forces that adds up to the chess game, but only that ensemble as organized to an end by higher forms of causality. Viewed from another and equally valid perspective, when one looks at that chess game one sees an immense and dynamic range of physical potentialities and actualities assumed into a complex unity by the imposition of rational form. One sees a variety of causalities, from below and from above, perfectly integrated and inseparable, and none obviously sufficient in itself to account for the whole. I am not, incidentally, suggesting that there is any clear break in the continuity between these different levels of causality, from the subatomic to the atomic to the molecular to the organic to the social (or what have you). With my sympathy for classical metaphysics, I certainly want to assume the perfect rational integrity of nature. What the principles of order are, however, that arrange those causal levels into a unified phenomenal event cannot be reductively identified by attempting to reassemble that event-with its whole complex web of the essential and the accidental, the fortuitous and the intentional-from its discrete physical parts. This is not a matter of mere practical limits, as if the only problem were that we simply do not have a sufficiently comprehensive view of the physical events involved; it is not the case that, as the Marquis de Laplace (1749-1827) fantasized, we could reconstruct the entire past of the universe and predict its entire future if only we knew the precise disposition of all particles in the universe at any given instant. There is also the more fundamental problem of the conceptual inseparability of different causal descriptions. It lies beyond the range of any physical logic, as I have said, to distinguish absolutely between information as caused and information as causing. Hence, for example, the somewhat poignant limitations of those computer programs devised to demonstrate the fertility of Darwinian “algorithms” by showing how complex organization can develop out of random variation and cumulative selection: whether of the crude sort, like Richard Dawkins’s program for generating the phrase “Methinks it is like a weasel” (which had a target phrase written into it as well as a protocol for the prospective retention of useful variations, and so operated in a far more Aristotelian than Darwinian fashion), or more sophisticated programs for generating the patterns of spider webs (which still must start from some concept of what a web is for). Since all such programs begin with a set of already highly informed objects and functions, like replication of virtual DNA, and some general prior purpose for directing the progress of cumulative selection, and since they must (not to state the obvious) be programmed by a programmer, all they really show is that, where a great deal of information is involved in some process, highly informed consequences follow. Such programs have their use, certainly, if they can demonstrate how stochastic variations within replicating organisms might be selected by environmental conditions, but they most certainly do not prove anything about the adequacy of a materialist view of reality. Even if one could conceivably prove, as is occasionally suggested these days, that cosmic information is somehow ceaselessly generated out of quantum states, this still would not have decided the issue of causality in favor of the naturalist position. As a brilliant physicist friend of mine often and somewhat tiresomely likes to insist, “chaos” could not produce laws unless it were already governed by laws...
If a 'most perfect being' could possibly exist, then it must certainly exist. But a most perfect being can't exists, since that creates a whole range of logical fallacies. Some slightly less perfect being could possibly exists, but it doesn't have to in all possible worlds.
@@Eikenhorstthe goal of the ontological argument is to stress a binary in which people need to come to a conclusion of whether or not an all-powerful God could possibly exist. Being necessarily existent is 'baked in' to being maximally great, so no there can't be a maximally great being that only exists in one possible reality
@@propertarian485 No, but we can already agree no maximally great being can exists. That is the issue! A maximally great thing has to be able to create a stone he can't lift, but then be able to lift it. That sort of thing. But I only have to look around the children's ward of the local hospital to know that there certainly doesn't exist a maximally great being (that isn't proof there is no god, just that there is very certainly a lot of room to make his creation a lot more great, so he certainly isn't maximally great)
@@Eikenhorst definitionally, "omnipotence" only applies to potential actions. No, God could not create a stone that he wasn't capable of lifting, because lifting an unliftable stone is impossible. Nothing could 'potentially' do it, therefore even an omnipotent being remains omnipotent for not being able to do it. as to your second, more valid point , i encourage you to explore this topic with a bit of charity. if you were a perfect being that can not simply tolerate sin (because it isn't Just), then what would getting rid of all sin and suffering look like? the bible claims that this will happen on "the lord's day" where he destroys all sin and judges everyone according to their deeds and their hearts. sadly, that includes any child old enough to have willingly chosen to do anything wrong. it's actually an act of mercy for the sake of people having the chance to make it into heaven that he allows us to suffer for a short while in our natural lives
@@Eikenhorst as @propertarian485 stated, the argument you make is moot. It seems that you think omnipotence should mean being able to do every single thing ever that could possibly be conceived. However, the proposition of "a rock created by an omnipotent being so heavy that said being can't lift it" is not a thing- it is a logical contradiction and an abstract concept, like a married bachelor, or the statement 4=5, a logical contradiction that can never exist in the real world or even potentially be done or exist ever, except as an abstract concept of something that cannot exist. So to insist that a maximally great being is not maximally great if said being is "only" capable of doing things that aren't logical contradictions is absurd. Such a being would still be functionally omnipotent.
This poorly reasoned and childish argument simply attempts to "wish" god into being. Hitch's razor applies... "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
Anslem's argument is trippy because it's obviously logically valid and its stated in such a way that makes it hard to figure out where the problem in the premises is. But something about the argument just seems ridiculous. It is the least convincing. But in the end I do think it hinges on a premise that is not obviously true or false. www.google.com/url?q=mally.stanford.edu/ontological.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjT7rzyhrfhAhUO2FkKHcOCAmcQFjAEegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw35DxErRo1MC_PTJPiv5yXg Godel's ontological argument is interesting mathematically but that one hinges on premises about essences / transworld collections of properties that are far to abstract for me to make heads or tails of even though I worked through the argument.
"I think therefore Odin exists." Unfortunately, you misunderstand the argument. If O-D-I-N has the properties of G-O-D then Odin IS God. You are merely playing with semantics.
@@michaelantonio "our" Holy Bible? I don't know of any books which have the attribute of holiness. I know you claim to have one apparently but I don't know why you think it's "holy". Full of holes perhaps. Oh, yea. What about the why?
@fynes leigh That is the second completely pointless comment by you in this comment section. I guess if you want to advertise the fact that you have nothing better to do, I suppose there is nothing I can do to prevent you.
I have a lot more objections: -All of these "possible worlds" are fictional. Saying that something could exist in some fictional world has no bearing on whether it exists in this world. -Perfection is subjective. Definitions may not contain anything that is subjective. Thus, this definition of God is invalid. -God is so far outside of all human understanding that one can't even say whether its very existence is possible.
I object to your objection about possible worlds. The idea of necessary and possible truth depends on whether it is true in all or some (accessible) possible worlds, which is useful in mathematics. Although this argument is wrong, if someone finds a way to argue that a statement is possibly true and showed that implies its necessarily true, that someone would have also argued its truth at the "actual" world. For example, let's suppose I want to prove this: "My neighbor should mow his lawn." Well, in a possible world, my neighbor won the lottery. I've seen him use a lottery ticket before. Therefore, in a possible world, my neighbor has a lot of money and thus time on his hands. This implies, in a possible world, my neighbor could mow the lawn. Now, his grass always gets very high it's always lowering the value of my home, which I want to sell, so he is negatively impacting others by not mowing his lawn. In general, it is true that my neighbor's bad lawn habits are negatively impacting others, no matter which world we're at, making it necessarily true. This implies it must apply to the possible world in which my neighbor won the lottery. So, since, in this possible world, my neighbor won the lottery and has plenty of time and money, it becomes his duty to spend it on cutting his lawn. In other words, in this possible world, he should mow his lawn. Now, if I could oblige him to mow his lawn in some world, I could oblige him to mow his lawn in any world. After all, he's spending his money on lottery tickets instead of mowing the lawn! Therefore, it is necessarily true that my neighbor should mow his lawn. So, we bring it to our world, and I can conclude it is true that my neighbor should mow his lawn.
Quick solution if presented with the argument: "I can imagine a universe where there is no god, all events occur from natural events and random chance. If god is omnipotent and must therefor exist in all possible universes then by the fact of one universe not containing god, that must mean none do." Simple, just use their own circular logic against them. That is the eternal flaw of arguments based in circular logic.
Except I don’t believe there’s a possible world God doesn’t exist...Here’s why....I don’t believe something can come from nothing EVER...And I’m not using the word “nothing” like Lawrence Krauss or some modern day scientists do when they really mean a quantum vacuum...So if there’s a 0% chance that something comes from nothing and all our evidence shows that time space and matter come from nothing, then I can easily say this...If out of say 1 million possible worlds 0% of them will have something come from nothing...so in every single world it will need an UNCAUSED being that ALWAYS existed and created time space and matter and in turn is timeless spaceless immaterial personal and Logical
@@ivorymars3845 If you believe that "not requiring a cause" is a possible characteristic to have, and you're going to use that as the basis for belief in God as a necessary being, then you have to explain: 1. What about God allows him to not require a cause (aside from just including it in his definition, since that's arbitrary and can be assigned to any concept) 2. Why only God can have the characteristic of not requiring a cause (because if even 1 other thing could conceivably have it, God wouldn't be the only solution to your observed dilemma) 3. Why eternality of the observed reality is not a valid solution to the chain of causation.
Nathanael because he’s God. These are characteristics only attributed to God. If something else has the same characteristic but lacks other characteristics then it is not God. You don’t need to explain why X only does Y and other don’t because Y is attributed to X. Y is not attributed to anything else because from our knowledge it isn’t.
@@miracleman.0126 That the definition of special pleading. I can attribute a characteristic to any entity I want. If you're going to argue that a concept has a monopoly on that characteristic, you need to DEMONSTRATE that that's logically the case. Asserting "because it's God" means you are only presupposing the exclusivity of God's characteristics and haven't actually shown that no other possible concept could hold them. I can logically conceive of a donut that was not caused to exist. This is not incoherent because according the narrative, not being caused to exist is coherent. God is not the only concept that can be imagined as uncaused.
Litamusicofficial I can imagine a world where matter preexists from time, meaning matter existed before time thus it has no beginning and simply exists, I can also imagine a world where time doesn’t start until the expansion of the matter begins thus there is no time before and there is no need for a cause
lanseri I've seen many people commenting on his age like this. It makes me feel like I'm *really* young, aha. Everyone else on this channel seems to be older. I'm out of place.
Remember that it took a few thousand years for someone to realize why Zeno's Paradox was not really one. We are only now reaching a point of understanding from all of the science, math, literature, experience, debates, thinking, pondering to coalesce what, at one time, was considered deep and complex into something more rigorous and understandable. Yes, today it only takes a well-considered, well-learned, and studious 17/18 year old to debunk poor logical arguments. And we must confess that these so-called 'best logical arguments' in support of Christianity are not really that amazing.
lanseri of course,Alex can casually debunk these arguments as,they are from the stone ages and have never been updated,hence,they will be easy to disprove. It s intriguing that most thiests of today,think the same way,stone age ppl did
People can do amazing things at a really young age, for example play violin at age 6. But it's really rare for such a young person to be able to argue so well at 18. This requires a really profound understanding of the world.
@@artistsanomalous7369 Oh thats a good one. Anybody proving your argument wrong just doesn't understand it. Goes to show the standard of religious argumentation
"The future is bright😁! Greetings from Germany" On what possible basis could one claim that the future is bright? Wishful thinking comes to mind, especially from Germany.
@Joseph: Joseph, my man, I won't ask why you haven't, rather, ask your self what you need to do to study philosophy. (if that is truly your sincere wish.)
Even in the argument God has to be morally perfect, but yet in the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran, God has laid out his definition of morality that he doesn't follow in the stories.
'Even in the argument God has to be morally perfect, but yet in the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran" But we aren't talking about the bible the torah and quran. We are talking about the existence of a perfect being.
Bill Asbury God is the perfect being. God is the “writer” of these holy books. Therefore, the books have perfect morality? Well if stoning gays and condoning slavery is morality, go ahead.
bill assbury: Are you implying that such a perfect being exists? Which fictional being are you ascribing the title of "perfect" to? yahweh, the evil, slavery loving, genocide demanding war-god?
@@Broctis I dont understand why people always think salvery in the Bible was immoral. Would it be better to starve? Would be better to live in poverty? A lot of the time slavery was more like a bond servant. Now if you want to make the claim that stoning a gay man was immoral you would have to prove that being gay is moral. God is just in punishing sin and corruption, and God has said people in homosexuality have been given over to a reprobate mind. However, what we see in the New Testament after the resurrection is redemption everyone has an opportunity to follow the Lord. I invite and encourage you to follow Jesus Christ, for those you believe in Him and recognize their sin will be saved threw Him.
@@kristofkovacs1742 I think he is waay off. Existence is a perfection of what? Existence carries no moral categories and as such is not a perfection of anything. Such think leads to non-sense. A rock has existence therefore a rock is god. a tree is god, a river is god, a bird is god. This of course leads to pantheism ie god is all. The Ontological Argument has been given great attention by philosophers and theologians, some of serious reputation. To not fully understand it, which I admit is difficult, takes a good deal of effort. Not wise to trivialize.
It always found funny that an all-powerful omni-potent being in all its wisdom cares so much about how many goats people have and what they do with their genitals.
Maybe he just gets really bored sometimes and screws with us for his amusement. But he already knows exactly what we're going to do in reaction. Being God is probably a living hell. Damn, now I feel sorry for the (non-existent) guy.
The "Ontological Argument" is the dumbest word salad ever spat out. I can dismiss it with one sentence: The concept of perfection is subjective for almost all that is not simply mathematics.
Except such an objection has been raised and dismissed very easily by those who favor the ontological argument. You're assumption of subjectivity is what is the downfall here, especially when discussing a God who by Anselm's definition is a "supremely perfect being which none greater can exist."
@@ChristianIce well it's not an argument because I wasn't giving an argument but ok 😂😂. I was just stating such an objection has been brought up to those who support the ontological argument and it has been easily dismissed by them. It also completely misunderstands the argument to raise such an objection. Your objection essentially takes for granted that subjectivism is true which would lead to your reasoning begging the question. If anyone would need to try harder I believe it would be you. There is a reason why OA is one of the most tricky and frustrating arguments for the existence of God. Kant probably had the best objection to it though he himself believed in God.
@@TCurry2215 Well, every consideration that comes from human mind, including whatever you think is "perfection", is subjective. To say that "somebody dismissed that" is just laughable. At least try to present an argument, or you are just wasting my time.
@@ChristianIce I mean you're begging the question by saying "everything is subjective" that is an argument in itself that you (or anyone for that matter) has ever actually proved successfully. Something supremely perfect is just that...perfect in every way...if you say that is subjective then it cannot in fact be perfect because it can always have something that could be better about it in respect due to limitations of the one holding said idea of their "perfect" being therefore a subjectively perfect being fails to be utterly perfect. Perfection in this instance is almost undeniably an objective concept and claiming it is subjective seems rather wrong-headed.
I had a friend who tried to use this argument and his exact words were just to imagine a perfect being, so I then trolled him and thought of myself. when he found out he was pissed.
Scottie Glover - I'm with you. The argument doesn't need such a long time to debunk. In every case it can be dismissed your way: Demand a definitive answer to what it means to be maximally perfect _before_ posing the argument. And that stupid argument dies right there!
1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” King James Version (KJV)
Your friend made a mistake by using the word "imagine" instead of "conceive". When Philosophers use the word conceive, they are not saying to imagine something. This is clearly a mistake since we can imagine all sorts of things. But that does not NECESSARILY mean that those things exist. Rather, to conceive of something is to state that it is POSSIBLE for such a thing to exist. And if you follow the premises correctly, the conclusion is therefore, God must exist.
in a world of imperfection, and sin, and fall from grace, which is explained as original sin,an evil spirit called satan, and his demons working on the earth... and the evil we have inherinted, including deaths of innocents..then maybe a peferct place called heaven is a good thing mean if the world is so imperfect downright evil. but we now you ll like this imperfect world rather then heaven.
Yes, but this god didn't foresee that those starving children would lose there souls at the expense temporary satiation of hunger and of not feeling the need to call upon God to meet their spiritual needs.These Children would be rescued from the temporal suffering of a passing world that is but a blip compared to eternity. This god would meet the ultimate definition of not seeing the forest for the trees, of only discounting the present, while ignoring the fatal ramifications of what lie ahead at the end of the children's earthly existence. Looks like if such a God is omniscient, he can't also be omnibenevolent; and if not all omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, then in what sense could such a being rightly be called God?
@@ScottRachelson777 why would they lose there souls? omni benevolent...hmmm. I m not sure how to define that term, but I don t think that is god, in the strict definition of it. god does send people to hell,[or there is another way of saying this] that may not be omni benevolent per se...what I m saying is god is all powerful, however, he also can judge people...and he constructs the rules as he sees fit. this might sound very vague to you, but it is hard to explain in such a small space here. put it another way, there are people who are redeemed, and go to heaven, and there are a lot of people in heaven. but if ted bundy didn t truly repent, there is a good chance he is in hell. there is a judgement side to god...that may be all powerfull, but not omnibenevolent?
@@ifyoueverfind78 I guess your point might hold weight under your definition, but I don't think that's how God's benevolent nature is characterized in the Bible. Remember, "there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end leads to death. Our standards of goodness and justice are seen and conceived from such a limited context that our evaluations and judgements of which acts are good and bad are steeped in shortsightedness because we don't have all the relevant evidence necessary to judge the heart of any man to the degree that a perfectly just and fair God can. "Our hearts are the most deceitful of its members, desperately wicked, who can know it?" My answer -- Only GOD can!
1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” King James Version (KJV)
Wayne Lawson Cherry picking the Bible is not honest! Why dont you quote the slavery,the gnashing teeth of Hell,the contradictory claims of suffering,the false Prophecies etc
@@rationalsceptic7634 Why don't you read the Exodus with understanding and not with skepticism. If you read it with the understanding you would understand that bible is very clear that you can't beat slaves to submission, because as it was *said* you were once slaves of Egypt, treat everybody with respect and love them. Bible is very clear that if you hurt the slave and break his tooth, leg, rib, whatever, you are supposed to release him and pay the damage that you have done. As for the other claims I am unaware of them. Prophecy may not be fulfilled then but it may be fulfilled now or in the future.
It’s not a lack of comprehension that’s the problem. It’s a willingness to accept an apologetic claim that you simply would not accept in any other circumstance.
Tricky part is defining god. As soon as you do, a religious person will move the goal posts. This is what was overlooked in this video. God is never defined in the ontological argument beyond the three properties (which are strawmanned in this video).
you can define god as "nothing". Because "nothing" means the absence of space and matter, and if space and matter don't exist then neither does time. But you can't assign the property of existence to "nothing" .Nothing is just a concept and it;s not compatible with reality or logic or whatever, it can' exist. What does that mean? If nothing can't exist , then there is mandatory for something to exist. But then again something can't come out of nothing , or can it? Well , what if you split "nothing" in something and -something. Together they are nothing, so you don't break any rule so far. To sum it all up :1) existence is a mandatory thing and doesn;t need a god 2) The god you define in your comments is actually "nothing" and you can't assign anything to it , therefore talking about him is pointless.
Would he need to exist and would he question his own existence and if he was perfect why did he feel the need to create a material world? If he had a need or needs then he was lacking some sort of happiness or a feeling of being incomplete, meaning that he wasn't perfect. The frightening scenario is that he is indeed imperfect and all powerful or just very powerful, has no moral code that applies to himself and he gets kicks out of creating imperfect worlds with all the pain and suffering caused by his imperfect beings. We are like characters caught up in his computer game, a very complex one that can go on for millions of years. Of course the religious leaders tell you he's good, how are they going to sell the religion otherwise?
Roolooth If there is an all powerful God that is evil, then evil would inherently be moral in a universe by his design (unless he hated himself). So no, I think the better answer is - like any other rule - morality just can't be applied here.
I am reminded of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341 BC). He asked: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is God able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then where does evil come from? Is God neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Remember what Alvin Plantinga's version of the argument says in premise 1. All it says is that it is POSSIBLE for a MGB (i.e God) to exist. The reason why God is defined as a maximally great being to begin with is because this is true just by definition, as he puts it. All you have to do is just think about it. If God does exist, then of course He will have to have what Alvin calls "maximum excellence". Maximum excellence is to have nothing BUT great making properties and that has to be true in EVERY possible world. To have maximum excellence, you would need to be all knowing, all powerful, all good, etc. God has traditionally been defined this way for centuries. Now God MAY not have all those properties, but that is actually besides the point because nobody knows. We don't need to know every attribute God has in order for this argument to work. All it states that if it is possible that a MGB exists (i.e God) then by following the written out modal logic formula, the conclusion must be that therefore a MGB (i.e. God) exists.
@@ProoFzorz But even presuming that (let alone YOUR specific God) is just circular reasoning. He exists because he conceptually exists, therefore he exists. Zero evidence Edit: Also 6:51 demonstrates his saying it’s possible to jump from a that God existing in *some* to *all* is ludicrous
@@Jonathan-A.C. "But even presuming that (let alone YOUR specific God) is just circular reasoning. He exists because he conceptually exists, therefore he exists. Zero evidence" The Ontological argument does NOT use circular reasoning. This confirms to me that you have very little understanding of the argument. What this argument tries to establish is that if it is at least possible that a maximumly great being exists in some possible world, then it follows logically and necessarily that a MGB exists in EVERY possible world. Meaning this one. By using the modal logic formula.
@@Jonathan-A.C. Basically, it would only be circular reasoning if the first premise of the argument stated that a MGB DOES exist, therefore, a MGB exists. Or if the first premise of the argument stayed the same and the last premise of the argument stated the same thing, that it is possible that a MGB exists. But this argument doesn't. It starts of by stating a fact that it is POSSIBLE for a MGB to exist. Then following modal logic, the conclusion is that therefore a MGB necessarily exists in this world because a MGB HAS TO exist in EVERY possible world.
@@ProoFzorz It’s literally just “God exists, therefore God exists”. Again, can’t be maximum in some, and the entire idea comes from the fact that you assume God can exist. Literally debunked just within that time skip in the video I linked. And that’s exactly what it is. It literally says that said God exists, therefore he exists. Which would actually imply that he isn’t Maximally Powerful, because he can only be somewhat possible, meaning that no God is maximally powerful within said logic. Even just by the logic, there’s zero actual evidence of any God existing; it’s just a train of thought
Also: If he is morally correct in EVERY world and there are infinite possibilities, then he is morally correct in a world where what we deem morally correct here is morally incorrect there, so he would be partially morally incorrect in both worlds because he is morally perfect in every world.
That's a valid critique if morality is relative. The fundamental claim of the theist is that whatever God believes to be good is good, and because his moral stances do not fluctuate in different possible realities, the moral standard would be universally true.
Did you really say "If God exists, then there would be an objective moral standard"? That's bunk. There would be God's subjective moral standard, and he would definitely have the power to enforce it, but that's about it.
That's true granted that God does not have the power to make something objectively moral or immoral. It might be difficult to imagine how that's possible, but the limits of our imagination do not in any way hinder what is logically conceivable.
Is it virtuous because god approves, or does god approve because it is virtuous? The religious concern for 'objective' morality has to answer Plato's question because if morality is determined by god and you as a believer decide to carry out god's moral edicts then are you acting morally? I would say that you are acting out of self-interest unless of course you regard god's moral edicts as morally independent of god. God's existence does not make an objective moral standard, just as the biblical endorsement of slavery is not an objective moral standard.
I love the logic that, if an omnipotent being theoretically COULD exist, then it'd be too powerful to be bound by the limits of our own uncertainty. An all-powerful being wouldn't be all-powerful if it were limited only to the realm of possibility. Therefore, the existence of an omnipotent god is made certain solely by its own hypotheticality.
"There is a possible world where a M A X I M A L L Y G R E A T being exists." "Yeah, a god is possible. But your god is logi" "But if it's M A X I M A L L Y G R E A T Then it exists in all possible worlds!" "Uhh no, that'd just mean it wouldn't be maxim" "And that means it exists in our world!" "You know what. A world where god is a flying spaghetti monster can exist. And that means that the god of this world is a flying spaghetti monster because it is maximally great." "What no, that doesn't make sen" "D O Y O U D A R E D E F Y O U R S P A G H E T T I O V E R L O R D S! Y O U R S I N F U L N E S S S H A L T N O T G O U N P U N I S H E D A N Y L O N G E R!"
That's a problem with religion, they say there's a maximally powerful being exists everywhere, but then they say it's only one and if so he's only able to "watch upon" our reality. And even if we didn't take in consideration the multiverse idea, it would still be unclear that if there was a god, would he have created our planet, galaxy or maybe the whole space?
Talentia Yes, IF this argument worked (which it doesn't), then it would prove a maximally great *thing*. The probability of that *thing* being God (of the Bible) is exactly 0, because I can make up infinitely many gods that fit the bill. (The easiest way to make infinite possibilities is to just ask how many fingers will the maximally great being have. A being with 5 fingers is one, but I can think of a being with 0 or 10 or 10^10000000 fingers. You get my point)
Matti Kauppinen Yes I definitely got your point and it's so correct. And I just realised how selfish people are. The problem in this scenario is that in bible it says, the god created our planet of nothing (even skipping the fact that matter can't be made of nothing but still) and when they say so they mean just our planet, or maybe our solar system, our galaxy or even the space? And these days we believe that there is life on other planets and in other galaxies, what about that then? Most of religion doesn't make sense.
+Matti Kauppinen It at least has no logical pathway to get from "a maximally great being exists" to "this being is the god i call Bob and meet to eat fries and burgers every first saturday in the month except it rains". You cannot even LOGICALLY demonstrate that we would be able to find this being much less that it even is known... and in return, just because you have called something you DID find "god", you cannot guarantee that it is the Ontologically logical "Maximally great being" without measurements, comparisons and testing out all attributes towards maximality... It is and stays a mental circlejerk. You do not find god by such means and you could not know if what you find IS god. Pretending otherwise means you can just as well stay with "god exists because i say so"
"P1: If God exists, he exists. P2: If God exists, he exists. C: God exists." It's like this every time. Either the arguments are as such, or "Look for God and you will find him."
As a child, I was a catholic due to my educación. I started questioning my faith as a renacer when I studied philosophy. The ontological argument was for me the last nail in God's coffin.
Then u should do little research on God in Islam, Their is no confussion in God concept in Muslim , that's why in Muslim countries athiest r less as compared to christian country
@@saaem6900 Asking somebody else as if you were some sort of imbecile child, is *not* research. You cannot acquire knowledge by being t-o-l-d- something. If that is not self evident to you it is not worth wasting my time on the matter.
Jesus loves all of us, even if we turn away. Just a little reminder that one person's theological argument being not completely coherent does not mean that the point of the argument is more or less valid, merely the argument itself. Likewise many atheistic arguments exist that can be easily debunked. To me the best argument for God is letting Him seek us and watching what He does in our lives. I know that God is real not because someone told me, but because I have seen and heard the miraculous things He does and have felt His overflowing love and mercy, which I hope you will someday experience as well
@@PestoPathogen69 oh yeah it is but its just furthering what religious people would go on to say. Its interesting how despite the differences most western/abrahamic faiths argue so similarly
@@Nathan-tg4gu No you fool, you are meant to continue the sentence. If 1+1=2 then 2=1+1. The statement 2=1+1 is unconfirmed as long as 1+1=2 isn't confirmed. But since 1+1=2 is confirmed that implies that 2=1+1. Simple logic. OP is correct. Please think before posting.
Irrelevant You’re missing the point. Finish the sentence however you like. “If 1+1=2, then grass is yellow.” Complete sentence. Doesn’t confirm anything. OP said that any “if” sentence has confirmed information. Therefore any if sentence which does not proves this rule false. If “1+1=2” is confirmed, then change it. “If the goldbach conjecture is correct, then there are an even number of stars in the universe.” If sentence, through and through. Now please tell me what information in that sentence is confirmed.
I was an Atheist for a long time. After watching a few of Alex's videos, I came to realize that I had completely dismissed logic from my thinking and my arguments. Thanks to Alex, I found God. Thank you Alex! Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
who gives thumbs down? seriously, you are one of the nicest UA-cam atheists I watch, with amazingly good content. question .... what if the universe is infinite, and we are just at this point from the begining. I mean, even infinite number string has a begining, unless you go negative, but time doesn't work that way.
question 1: He dismisses others opinions too easily. Lack of understanding or sympathy doesn't imply correctness. Too many atheists (and other religious people) don't seem to agree with this. question 2: Time is a construct of human perception. Scientifically there is no reason why it should only flow one way. But practically, we need to understand how things change (which is why we measure time) to survive.
k.... so he's not delving into the circular arguments that happen. he's arguments are still sound. where is your point of contention with what he said?
Not necessarily. The "contradictions" he presents can be sidestepped with the understanding that "god" exists outside of time, space, and most importantly logic. If god exists, then "he" created these things and are not restricted by them. This isn't an insult, it's just a repercussion of believing your undefendable belief is more right than any other undefendable belief.
You can't say that things exists outside matter and space. You also can't say things exist outside logic. And you can't use logic to deny logic. What is the matter with you>? Assuming what you said was true (even if it can't logically be) then there that god cannot interact with us because he is not compatible with reality. And there is no evidence that outside logic would mean above logic. Do you see how far you religious people have to go to make god believeable , how far you stretch your ideas? Why don't you accept the fact that the god you claim to exist is logically not possible to exist?
noah schaefferkoetter well put, "side step". my belief can not be contrasted against your claim. and side stepping an argument is disingenuous, and wrong. how could I be wrong? something that can be infinite, can have a begining. and you still haven't said where you disagree with what he said, just that he didn't hit every point. what did he say wrong?
Yup. You nailed it. I'm not sure why you mentioned that if the god could exist its morality would be objective. Other than that, damn... Theism is empty, crippled, illogical and dying.
The biggest problem I see in this argument is how it never explains what "greatest" means. Why is being sentient great? Besides, "perfection" is absolutely arbitrary. There cannot be a "perfect island", because there is no objective standards for islands to meet. There is also no such standard for intelligent beings. And another funny thing, if god has all the perfect atributes, how mexican is he? Perfectly? How experienced is he at killing puppies?
I'd like to know just how _maximally perfect_ is the penis of this god... ;-) Roberto Esquivel Cabrera has the world's largest penis at 48 cm long (18.9 inches), but does their god have a more _maximal_ penis than him???
DrMakak That's the biggest flaw for me too. Thomas Aquinus made the claim that "something to be" is absolutely subjective, which leads (for me) to the conclusion that it is up to you (the thinker) to imagine yourself what the maximum could be - but then somehow maximise that beyond imagination to fit inside the ontological argument. That's childish - in my opinion - for a debate. That's kind of the level of children saying "You can't count to infinity!" and the other says "Of course I just did."
That depends on what makes a penis perfect. I can imagine following possibilities: 1) It's infinitely long and thick, probably needing a separate infinite universe to contain it. 2) It's the penis that would be the result of asking every sentient creature about a perfect penis and then making it average (might look a little dolphiny tho). 3) It's a schrodinger's penis that is perfect for the needs of person observing it - looks like your ex's penis, like that one pornstar you love etc. if you're a hetero male I guess it's 1cm shorter than your own to make you feel good? If you're a lesbian I have no idea, probably it's plastic and double-sided.
Well my idea of a _maximally perfect_ penis would involve _maximally perfect_ sex. But since their god isn't married (is he???) then its godly penis would have to substitute sexual intercourse for something else: The _maximally perfect wank._ Presumably Jesus would just step outside for a moment while their god rubbed out a really good one with his _maximally perfect_ penis. ;-)
Wankin' is supposed to be a sin as far as I know, so it's not an option. The only last thing the godly penis could be used for unsinfuly would be peeing. Maybe it's a fire-hose-penis after all?
"Think about the flying spaghetti monster! See he exists!" Unfortunately, you misunderstand the argument. If M-O-N-S-T-E-R has the properties of G-O-D then Monster IS God. You are merely playing with semantics.
So if Marvel said a character was maximally great and powerful and exists in every possible world, and the Marvel multiverse includes our world, we can assume that character exists in our world? Got it.
From Wikipedia: "Since its initial proposal, few philosophical ideas have generated as much interest and discussion as the ontological argument. Nearly all of the great minds in Western philosophy have found it worthy of their attention." Maybe, just maybe, there's something about the argument you've missed.
@@artistsanomalous7369 Maybe the desperate attempts of religious armchair philosophers to define their gods into existence is simply fascinating to actual philosophers. Maybe you should learn why so many philosophers are fascinated by the argument... and think that it fails.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 If we always trusted our intitial gut reactions, where would that have left Copernicus, Newton, and especially Einstein? In _On the Origin of Species_ Darwin even says: _To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real_
@@artistsanomalous7369 Initial gut reaction: The argument is absurd. After listening to philosophers argue about the argument: It’s still absurd and fascinating that anyone thinks that it isn’t.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 You're welcome to disagree with the argument as long as you can identify what is wrong with it. Bertrand Russell said, "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." If your level of sophistication doesn't extend beyond a passive, juvenile dismissal to the effect of "it's ridiculous and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid", you should probably just stick to political discourse of the kind you might find on Twitter, and not try to engage in philosophical debates.
Me: Not really listening and just playing on my phone. Cosmic: say it with me kids Me: oh, uhhhhhhh a circular argumen- Cosmic: logically incoherent Me: ...
“Unicorns are pure, magical, pretty... they’re the greatest thing ever!”. “If it doesn’t exist, then it’s not the greatest thing ever!”. “Damn, you got me. But I still think unicorns are the best so I guess this means that unicorns exists.”
The ontological argument must then also ask: "Is it possible for 2 separate maximally great Beings to exist in any possible world"? Then, what about 3, 4, 5 etc. This will lead to an ontological conclusion that there are an infinite amount of separate maximally great Beings (Gods) in every possible world.
While I generally agree with Alex' conclusions in the video (and shockingly found this about two days after a friend and I had been discussing the same argument and came to the same conclusions), I don't think this stands up. Accepting the Ontological Argument's premises for the sake of exploring this question, I think a fairly easy way to rebut this would be to suggest that a maximally great being, especially one that is omnipotent and omniscient (ignoring the mentioned incompatibility, again, for the sake of the argument's premises to explore the question), would be exactly identical to and therefore the same being as any another transcendant maximally great being. Consider this in shorter form: A maximally great being certainly encompasses all other maximally great beings, thus rendering them the same.
This is my favorite boneheaded-nonsense argument. It's so adorably clueless. God is the greatest possible being, and a god that exists is greater than a god that does not exist. Therefore: god exists. Hilarious! LOL!
I can imagine a world without a maximally great being in it. That being wouldn't exist in all possible worlds because it doesn't exist in the one I've just conceived of. If the being doesn't exist in all possible worlds it's not maximally great, therefore it doesn't necessarily exist in the actual world.
This was one of the first writings we had to read in one of my philosophy classes in college. I remember being baffled as to how anyone could possibly think this is a good argument, especially now...
Can you exactly explain why it ISN'T a good argument? Of course, it looks like there's something wrong with it, but what exactly is? The video is just a critique of semantics, not a refutation of the ontological argument.
@@pseudoplotinus It definitely is a refutation of the ontological argument. The assumptions and premises are quite flawed, as Alex demonstrated. This makes the fundamental logic of the argument fall apart, therefore invalidating it.
@@stirpiano He didn't demonstrate it, though. As an atheist, it would be difficult to debate and discuss any sort of especially metaphysical conception or idea, since his philosophy or and point of view of his argument lies solely on the debatable and sophomoric premise that objective reality is materialist, and there is nothing else beyond what we humans can experience, which is absurd.
BarcaFans HD I'm aware of the abstraction of modal logic. What I'm saying is that the argument assumes that other possible worlds aren't just hypothetical possibilities, but that they actually exist separate from our own reality.
You don't need this level of complication to prove or disprove god, you just need to answer one question truly without self-deception: Is my life better with god or without god? And no philosopher or scientist can answer this question except YOU.
Craig is so self deluded and indoctrinated,he conflates Faith with Facts,Causality with Being..he is merely looking into a Mirror to see the God he wants!
i think causality is one thing, but perhaps it is religious experience, which science, unquote, assumes invalid. ie. when one is religious, sometimes its based on religious experience. there are other arguments that may point to a creator, the prime mover or causality and so on. you are assuming god is invalid anyway. then I guess he would be choosing his religion- so to speak...
During my first semster at Religious Studies, on Christianity I. course, i read Anselm's argument. I felt dumb, because i still could not understand why this should be a logical argument. :) Turns out I was actually dumb, because my presumption was it was supposed to be logical. For some reason, this still happens to me from time to time. I don't know if i have some deeply rooted authority bias or something.
It has proper logical words, and a pretty logical structure. It's very tricky to identify where the problem with it is. As far as I can tell the problem is God's definition is too strong from the beginning. It's a bit sneaky.
@2:19 - I still don't understand how an objective moral standard follows from God's existence. See Euthyphro's Dilemma. A valuation is still mind-dependent, and therefore subjective, even if that mind is an omniscient God. Edit: To expand - there's a difference between a truly objective standard and an _objectivized_ standard (i.e. merely regarded as objective).
"It is not assumed that the Tathāgata exists after death. Neither is it assumed that he does not exist, or both, or neither. It is not assumed that even a living Tathāgata exists. Neither is it assumed that he does not exist, or both, or neither."
"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."
They assumed that all worlds that are not actual are possible, but didn't say anything about the worlds that are impossible, and that's where a thing with their definition belongs (contradicts logic). Therefore, all other arguments are invalid.
Both physics and maths work consistently with the concept of infinity. The simplest example is projective geometry. Another is the Riemann sphere in complex analysis. This has no impact on the essence of your argument. But it is incorrect to say that the concept of infinity is logically incoherent - it can be made coherent with the correct conceptual infrastructure. As for thanking us, Alex, it is we who must thank you - for a fantastic, fantastically interesting and informative channel. Thank you.
P1: if I have a girlfriend, I have a girlfriend. P2: if I have a girlfriend, I have a girlfriend. Conclusion, I have a girlfriend. Yeah I guarantee that’s false.
Love your videos, but there's just one thing thats been bugging me for quite a while. The omnipotence Paradox actually can have a third viable option, I think. It is just something me and some friends have discussed sometimes internally in a group of atheists. If omnipotence actually means all powerful as in "Can do absolutely everything" that means that he necessarily has to be able to change the way logic works if presented with a question such as this. This version of omnipotence would also erase all other paradoxical values of god since... well he could just change how our understanding of logic works. I don't know if it makes any real sense, and it certainly does not validate an all loving creator (which weirdly doesn't love everyone), but in my opinion it seems like an argument some christian should have brought up by now.
I have followed your channel for quite some time and I find it most inspiring indeed. Your philosophical rules and "twists" are sometimes hard to follow for someone without the scholastic training, but I enjoy it every time anyway. There is one thought though that crossed my mind recently. Most of your arguments are based on "logic" and philosophical coherence. That's how a rational thinking person argues. But there is one "tempting" quality to religion: Their god is not of this world. He is by all means "supernatural", kind of existing in a different dimension. Therefor we can't see him, communicate with him or "proof" his existence. That's called faith. But if you fantasize about such a supernatural being, you can easily ascribe any quality to him you want. Resulting in the fact, that god doesn't have to follow the rules of human logic or philosophy. He is by all means "outside of the system", which means, everything is possible. All the important things about the god delusion are basically miracles, and in the world of miracles there is no limit whatsoever. It doesn't have to "make sense" in the human understanding, therefor "god works in mysterious ways". So my question to you: How can we argue about something supernatural in a natural, logic, human way? Won't there always be this excuse of "inapplicability"?
This is known as the "god of the gaps" argument and appealing to ignorance. - I don't know, therefore God. One question I pose to people who say this is: How do you prove that God is not evil? Because an evil God can write the bible, proclaim he is good and powerful, and lie about his true nature. Then every instance of him being evil in the bible would confirm his nature, while every act of good is him "acting in mysterious ways" If one cannot claim to know God and think like God, one cannot accurately ascribe certain traits to him.
Thank you, the first time I heard this argument I could not believe it, it seemed so illogical to me, yet I could not articulate my view on it, but your "God exists therefore, he exists" really did it for me.
That's not true, mathematically speaking you absolutely can add eternities. Add the line segment of 0-1 and 1-2 and you have added two infinite sets of points, and you get an equally infinite, not more infinite, set of points.
An string of even integers is equal to a string of integers. Just pair the 2 from the first string with a 1 with the second string, 4 from the first string with a 2 from the second string, and beyond into infinity
This is where I despise any mathematician that spews on about 'aleph-null' et al as 'different SIZED infinities'. Um, how can such a thing exist within the definition of 'infinity'. All infinite sets are infinite (big PERIOD). Therefore, they are all the same size = infinite. As you note correctly, it is the set contents that are not the same.
Robert Templeton there are bigger versions of infinity, but on a number line, you're always talking about countable infinity, so it's always the same size. Aleph null is smaller than Aleph 1, it's defined as such. I think what you need to understand is that most of mathematics has no bases in physics or nature at all, it's all about just numbers and the way they interact given certain parameters. It's usually much like a procedural generation of something, you create a seed, which in this case is whatever axioms or rules you arbitrarily decide to follow, and then just watch what happens, math is the logical unraveling of a knot we didn't tie in the first place. When mathematicians say there are different sizes of infinity, they are correct because they pretty much get to decide if there are or not. We can't confirm a single infinity in our universe, so getting upset about people misconstruing the way they work seems kinda silly.
P1) It's possible that, in some world, there exists a maximally horrible monster. (one that's omniscient, omnipotent, and causes maximum suffering) P2) Such a monster would be _more_ horrible if it exists in _all_ possible worlds. C) Therefore, Yahweh exists. ;) But really, though, where's my maximally horrible monster? This argument isn't very good at shaping reality, is it? :/
6:52 logical error on your Part. "A maximally great being exists in some possible worlds" is in itself Not a false Statement, since it does not Claim that a maximally great being does not exist in all possible worlds. Both Statements can be true simultaneously
I love the comment, "You can imagine things that may exist, from unicorns, to leprechauns, to... Christopher Hitchens losing a debate..." I wish he was still here to give a few more Hitch slaps to creationists like Craig and Ken Ham.
Even Hitch admitted, in other words, that he got slapped by his own hitch in his debate v. Craig. Clearly Hitch-slapper lost that debate. Anyone with any firing brain cells could see that!
Around 7:20 it seemed you were saying "some" implies "not all," which is not true. If something is true in all possible worlds, and since a world exists, that statement is true in some possible world, namely that world that exists.
As I understand it, Omnipotent doesn't mean "can do literally everything", but rather "can do every non-contradictory thing", so the rock argument isn't really a serious problem.
@2:20: "… if god did exist then there would be an objective moral standard." This is false. If God existed, his moral standard would be just as subjective as yours or mine.
A great playlist. Loved it. However, I found the argument that omnipotence is logically incoherent to be not very convincing. While linguistically, a bachelor is defined as being unmarried and therefore a married bachelor cannot exist, it does not follow that the definition of omnipotence negates its existence. Just because a limited mind has problems exploring the concept of infinity, that does not show that the infinite is impossible. Still good content deconstructing the ontological argument - I’m just being picky.
My thoughts exactly. Great video, but I wasn't convinced by that as well. Much like a programmer would be bound by said version of his or her program while in the program, the programmer is not tethered by those paradigms while not in that program. The programmer could be anything they want to be inside the program, and not cease to be the programmer.
The Ontological girlfriend. The maximal greatest girlfriend would be beautiful, smart and funny. She would be rich and successful, sexy and supportive. To be maximally great she would have to be totally in love with me and also would have to exist right here and now. Odd, I used the Ontological argument, and such a girlfriend is possible. So what was wrong? Maybe it's not possible to logically deduce things into existence.
mabrown666 That 's not the Ultimate Being. You did not use the ontological argument because the argument is only about God (Ultimate Being). Your statement clearly shows you do not understand the ontological argument.
Can a Muslim god create a bacon cheeseburger so baconey that he can't eat it?
Holy Koolaid Of course, it's just a normal bacon cheeseburger.
Holy Koolaid Only if it's Turkey bacon; though I'm sure the Ottoman Empire would object.
Iv'e tried that and while am not a god can say from experience there is no such thing as to baconey.
Jkas 'Valamee I saw what you did there
👍
A philosophical paradox: can a bacon cheeseburger be TOO baconey?
Nah!
Two Cosmic Skeptic videos in 24 hours? The gods have smiled upon us all! er...you know what I mean.
Genetically Modified Skeptic I've heard tell of dreams and visions of this day but never thought the prophecies were true...
he si back guys,, after his exams
Poetic metaphors and allusions to classic literature are acceptable.
Geoff Rivers I saw a bolt of lightning therefore god exist, is that your argument? Intellectual giant are you?
There is only one God bro
"To Christopher hitchens losing a debate" hahaha classic
Danny Arellano I lost it right there!
Me too. lol
Hahaaha yea... 169th like.
He actually lost the one with William Lane Craig
AZ Outcast
Watch the debate actually. As much as I adore Hitch, he clearly lost that one. He was not committing himself to the topic, rambling between different subjects, completely ignoring what Craig said - and this was especially frustrating during the rebuttal. He did not address any single point made by Craig. The fact that what he said was true is irrelevant - if you agree to debate on a topic, you obliged to stick to that and to address the points made by your opponent. The rest is irrelevant.
I'm not sure about the reasons, maybe he didn't feel well (he was clearly sweating like hell), maybe something else.. But it was painful to watch.
Now I'm not saying that Craig made any valid points or that he was right. But in order to show that, you have to address the actual points and you have to play by the rules of the debate. Hitch failed at it, while Craig at least presented structured (but unsound) arguments. And that, my friend, IS a lost debate.
Philosophy of religion should be a requirement for all students. Logical arguments and their construction train the mind to be spectacular.
Or just philosophy in general. Where I live (Canada), philosophy of any sort is, it seems, not a required class, and only actually offered in post-secondary. That leaves a lot of people with uncultivated critical thinking faculties, not helped by much of education being information regurgitation.
@@TyDreacon
I wouldn’t say critical thinking has to come from talking a philosophy course whatsoever, although I do think it is one of the most important skills to have in life
@@Jonathan-A.C. exactly. I never took philosophy classes, but ALL of my subjects in highschool, especially the last two years, went out of their way to try and cultivate our critical thinking, essentially making it a requirement for good academic performance.
Mathematical proof classes are probably even better. Problem is they're tough. Our curriculum has logical formal geometric proofs, which isn't a bad start.
@@theboombody I was going to say mathematical proof after seeing this comment too! I didn't enjoy the formal geometric proofs I did in school. We had to draw a table and list the steps, and it felt very restricting. I didn't enjoy proofs until sets and functions were in the theorems, and proofs were more like paragraphs.
The ontological argument. More like the onto-not-so-logical argument, am I right?
Anyone?
**rimshot**
CosmicSkeptic Correct, but so lame 😁
CosmicSkeptic Got that British humour
CosmicSkeptic Unsubscribed.
CosmicSkeptic, yeah I hardly could sit through all the convolutions.
The most interesting thing for me is that it proves that cosmic skeptics existed even centuries ago when there were no scientific explanations for the world worth the name.
In fact, why should Anselm devise an argument to prove the existence of God if nobody contested it?
It would be so fucking scary if ostriches could fly
Andrea Oh god!
Andrea watch samsung commercial 😁
Andrea look up online the discovery of the Owen claw. From an extinct bird species named moa... Worst nightmare indeed
Fredericus van der Wal watch a video called kondomvaruhuset.se you can thank me later
Andrea are u swedish? only found a product i have no use for
a married bachelor can exist if bachelor is the family name.
Holy fuck...
No, because that would be a married Bachelor, not a married bachelor.
However, what if a man is married and he holds a bachelor of science? Does that make him a married bachelor? Yes and no. The problem is that Alex does not define what he means by bachelor. It's clear what he is implying in reference to the paradox, but he never explicitly states this.
Laughing Haunter 🙀😏
he could be leading a double life although in a way he wouldn't really be a bachelor...
A unmarried married man, then. The paradox isn't in the words, it's in the definition. 'A' cannot possibly NOT be 'A'
But you're probably just joking anyways :p
Apologist: God is beyond comprehension.
Also Apologist: I understand God.
We know whatever God has revealed to us.
@NotACapitalist The one true God who has revealed Himself in Scripture.
There is ample evidence for God. The ressurection of Christ being the clearest among them.
The evidence is clear and certain but you reject it. What you are about to ask me to do is prove the evidence from your worldview. But your worldview is incoherent so if I adopted it, I would prove nothing. This is why you have to constantly borrow from my worldview to live every day. For example, you rely on science, but in order to do so you assume the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. You have 0 foundation to affirm these things.
After all, if we are just highly evolved mammals who've adapted to our environment so as to survive, why should we assume our minds are geared toward truth? All our thoughts are just determined outcomes based on the laws of physics and chemistry. You and a person with what we would call a mental disorder just have chemicals bouncing around differently than the other's. You have no basis, given your absurd worldview, upon which to judge who is correct in any given conflict. So you have not. basis to criticize my reasoning since it is just chemicals moving as they are determined.
So no sir. I will not adopt your worldview to give you evidence because your worldview will never allow you to interpret the evidence correctly. You have given up knowledge and logic at the alter of your infidelity. But there is a way out. I'm sure you're a nice guy with all sorts of talents and good character traits. That's because God loves you. He made you wonderfully. Trust in Him and you will have a foundation to do all the things you love. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
@NotACapitalist
I will not talk with you further since it would be fruitless. You so pridefully argue, so sure of yourself, to establish what conclusion? That you are ultimately insignificant and purposeless. You make yourself a god and a mere animal at the same time. The absurdity is unbelievable. Everything you say just exposes your suppression of the truth. You know who God is. Repent and believe the gospel.
@@joshtrusts Oh dear here we go again lots of evidence for god then fuck all to back that bollocks up ! hmm
To follow that up with saying that atheists have a world view wow strawman much !
As for interpreting evidence ha ha ha typical theist dancing with reality and falling back into delusion.
“The picture of the world with which naturalism presents us, we should also recall, is not the phenomenal world we all experience but rather an intuition of its hidden principles, a supposition regarding its secret essence. It is not the case that, as we sometimes lazily assume, materialism is a natural default position for our thinking because we have direct knowledge only of the material order. There are, for one thing, inherent logical difficulties in the materialist position that make it anything but a natural picture of the world, as I have noted and will note again. There are, as well, innumerably many things we know (take the truths of mathematics, for instance) that are not material realities in any meaningful sense. More to the point, though, we have no actual direct experience of the material world as such at all, at least not as pure materialism depicts it. Our primordial experience of reality is an immediate perception of phenomena-appearances, that is-which come to us not directly through our senses, but through sensations as interpreted by thought, under the aspect of organizing eidetic patterns. We do not encounter the material substrate of things, but only the intelligible forms of things, situated within an interdependent universe of intelligible forms, everywhere governed by purposes: organic, artificial, moral, aesthetic, social, and so forth. We know, also, that those forms are not simple structural aggregates of elementary physical realities, as if atoms were fixed components stacked one upon another like bricks until they added up to stable physical edifices; the forms remain constant, while atomic and subatomic reality is in perpetual flux and eludes that sort of local composition altogether. Phenomenal forms and the quantum realm upon which they are superimposed do not constitute a simple, unilinear, mechanical continuum. And even in the purely physiological realm, we have no direct knowledge of unguided material forces simply spontaneously producing the complex order that constitutes our world. A mere agitation of molecules, for instance, does not simply “amount to” a game of chess, even though every physical structure and activity involved in that game may be in one sense reducible without remainder to molecules and electrical impulses and so on; it is not the total ensemble of those material forces that adds up to the chess game, but only that ensemble as organized to an end by higher forms of causality. Viewed from another and equally valid perspective, when one looks at that chess game one sees an immense and dynamic range of physical potentialities and actualities assumed into a complex unity by the imposition of rational form. One sees a variety of causalities, from below and from above, perfectly integrated and inseparable, and none obviously sufficient in itself to account for the whole.
I am not, incidentally, suggesting that there is any clear break in the continuity between these different levels of causality, from the subatomic to the atomic to the molecular to the organic to the social (or what have you). With my sympathy for classical metaphysics, I certainly want to assume the perfect rational integrity of nature. What the principles of order are, however, that arrange those causal levels into a unified phenomenal event cannot be reductively identified by attempting to reassemble that event-with its whole complex web of the essential and the accidental, the fortuitous and the intentional-from its discrete physical parts. This is not a matter of mere practical limits, as if the only problem were that we simply do not have a sufficiently comprehensive view of the physical events involved; it is not the case that, as the Marquis de Laplace (1749-1827) fantasized, we could reconstruct the entire past of the universe and predict its entire future if only we knew the precise disposition of all particles in the universe at any given instant. There is also the more fundamental problem of the conceptual inseparability of different causal descriptions. It lies beyond the range of any physical logic, as I have said, to distinguish absolutely between information as caused and information as causing. Hence, for example, the somewhat poignant limitations of those computer programs devised to demonstrate the fertility of Darwinian “algorithms” by showing how complex organization can develop out of random variation and cumulative selection: whether of the crude sort, like Richard Dawkins’s program for generating the phrase “Methinks it is like a weasel” (which had a target phrase written into it as well as a protocol for the prospective retention of useful variations, and so operated in a far more Aristotelian than Darwinian fashion), or more sophisticated programs for generating the patterns of spider webs (which still must start from some concept of what a web is for). Since all such programs begin with a set of already highly informed objects and functions, like replication of virtual DNA, and some general prior purpose for directing the progress of cumulative selection, and since they must (not to state the obvious) be programmed by a programmer, all they really show is that, where a great deal of information is involved in some process, highly informed consequences follow. Such programs have their use, certainly, if they can demonstrate how stochastic variations within replicating organisms might be selected by environmental conditions, but they most certainly do not prove anything about the adequacy of a materialist view of reality. Even if one could conceivably prove, as is occasionally suggested these days, that cosmic information is somehow ceaselessly generated out of quantum states, this still would not have decided the issue of causality in favor of the naturalist position. As a brilliant physicist friend of mine often and somewhat tiresomely likes to insist, “chaos” could not produce laws unless it were already governed by laws...
"I can imagine something, therefore it is real."
@fynes leigh bruh that comment is 2 years old lol
I can imagine a god that killed yahweh and left us all to our own devices... burden of proof is too much fun!
..."Before a thing is created, first it must exist in the mind"...
This is kind of the very response that Alex mentioned and said that it was not effective. The argument isn’t as simple as that.
@@jeffreyalilin7314 so a baby has to think of a car In order for it to be created?
You are one of the most amazing UA-camr i have come across, really love the way you present your argument so simply, precisely and accurately!
Much better arguments than the flatulence from a certain overweight UA-cam sellout.
+Crystal Pepsi
who??
Thank you for the superb content Alex! i'm very excited to see where this channel is going.
Hi Jesus👍
It's more like "If God could possibly exist, then he must certainly exist."
If a 'most perfect being' could possibly exist, then it must certainly exist. But a most perfect being can't exists, since that creates a whole range of logical fallacies. Some slightly less perfect being could possibly exists, but it doesn't have to in all possible worlds.
@@Eikenhorstthe goal of the ontological argument is to stress a binary in which people need to come to a conclusion of whether or not an all-powerful God could possibly exist. Being necessarily existent is 'baked in' to being maximally great, so no there can't be a maximally great being that only exists in one possible reality
@@propertarian485 No, but we can already agree no maximally great being can exists. That is the issue! A maximally great thing has to be able to create a stone he can't lift, but then be able to lift it. That sort of thing. But I only have to look around the children's ward of the local hospital to know that there certainly doesn't exist a maximally great being (that isn't proof there is no god, just that there is very certainly a lot of room to make his creation a lot more great, so he certainly isn't maximally great)
@@Eikenhorst definitionally, "omnipotence" only applies to potential actions. No, God could not create a stone that he wasn't capable of lifting, because lifting an unliftable stone is impossible. Nothing could 'potentially' do it, therefore even an omnipotent being remains omnipotent for not being able to do it. as to your second, more valid point , i encourage you to explore this topic with a bit of charity. if you were a perfect being that can not simply tolerate sin (because it isn't Just), then what would getting rid of all sin and suffering look like? the bible claims that this will happen on "the lord's day" where he destroys all sin and judges everyone according to their deeds and their hearts. sadly, that includes any child old enough to have willingly chosen to do anything wrong. it's actually an act of mercy for the sake of people having the chance to make it into heaven that he allows us to suffer for a short while in our natural lives
@@Eikenhorst as @propertarian485 stated, the argument you make is moot. It seems that you think omnipotence should mean being able to do every single thing ever that could possibly be conceived. However, the proposition of "a rock created by an omnipotent being so heavy that said being can't lift it" is not a thing- it is a logical contradiction and an abstract concept, like a married bachelor, or the statement 4=5, a logical contradiction that can never exist in the real world or even potentially be done or exist ever, except as an abstract concept of something that cannot exist. So to insist that a maximally great being is not maximally great if said being is "only" capable of doing things that aren't logical contradictions is absurd. Such a being would still be functionally omnipotent.
This poorly reasoned and childish argument simply attempts to "wish" god into being. Hitch's razor applies... "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".
stop liking ur own comment, atleast
I didn't. Well I do, but I didn't click like. You can if you want to.
Hitch's razor is a priori - therefore it's self-refuting.
As far as I know, that phrase comes from Carl Sagan. Me love Hitch, but ... are you plagiarizing, or is one us mistaken?
Anslem's argument is trippy because it's obviously logically valid and its stated in such a way that makes it hard to figure out where the problem in the premises is.
But something about the argument just seems ridiculous. It is the least convincing.
But in the end I do think it hinges on a premise that is not obviously true or false.
www.google.com/url?q=mally.stanford.edu/ontological.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjT7rzyhrfhAhUO2FkKHcOCAmcQFjAEegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw35DxErRo1MC_PTJPiv5yXg
Godel's ontological argument is interesting mathematically but that one hinges on premises about essences / transworld collections of properties that are far to abstract for me to make heads or tails of even though I worked through the argument.
Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that he himself could not eat it?
Yes, because Jesus is not God. He is one of many prophets.
Yes, but then the Microwave would be a greater being, and should be worshiped in stead. All hail the holy microwave.
Kakve veze ima burrito sa Isusa majketi??? Osim toga, ako je preziveo bicovanje sa bodlje i respece onda moze i da pojede i burrito.
Could deez nuttz, deez nutt so deez nutts. That deez nuttz can't deez nutt.
@@SWTobito0702 Wha? The Holy Trinity is b/s then?
I think, therefore Odin exists.
"I think therefore Odin exists."
Unfortunately, you misunderstand the argument. If O-D-I-N has the properties of G-O-D then Odin IS God.
You are merely playing with semantics.
@@nickseda5371 yeah and like a trickster God.
@@BillyBike416 ... you don't know who Odin is do you
ChaingunCassidy he’s lying to you, don’t listen to him.
@@stephenmancuso3314 who's lying
"...to Christopher Hitchens losing a debate is theoretically possible though logically incoherent..."
Precious.
I hope Hitch repented to God before leaving this planet.
@@michaelantonio Why? Which God?
@@bruceshand8052 The God of our Holy Bible.
@@michaelantonio "our" Holy Bible? I don't know of any books which have the attribute of holiness. I know you claim to have one apparently but I don't know why you think it's "holy". Full of holes perhaps.
Oh, yea. What about the why?
@@bruceshand8052 You better be careful how you address God's Word.
10:41 is like when I'm in my math test trying to solve something and I end up with x = x.
@fynes leigh That is the second completely pointless comment by you in this comment section. I guess if you want to advertise the fact that you have nothing better to do, I suppose there is nothing I can do to prevent you.
@@okyourerightbut5893 why a need to reply to him then?
@@jerrdust9096 I don't remeber why I wrote this comment. I guess it was also completely pointless.
@Joseph Thanks for reminding me about this and making me cringe at my comment
I have a lot more objections:
-All of these "possible worlds" are fictional. Saying that something could exist in some fictional world has no bearing on whether it exists in this world.
-Perfection is subjective. Definitions may not contain anything that is subjective. Thus, this definition of God is invalid.
-God is so far outside of all human understanding that one can't even say whether its very existence is possible.
God is
bob polo not real
I object to your objection about possible worlds. The idea of necessary and possible truth depends on whether it is true in all or some (accessible) possible worlds, which is useful in mathematics. Although this argument is wrong, if someone finds a way to argue that a statement is possibly true and showed that implies its necessarily true, that someone would have also argued its truth at the "actual" world.
For example, let's suppose I want to prove this: "My neighbor should mow his lawn." Well, in a possible world, my neighbor won the lottery. I've seen him use a lottery ticket before. Therefore, in a possible world, my neighbor has a lot of money and thus time on his hands. This implies, in a possible world, my neighbor could mow the lawn. Now, his grass always gets very high it's always lowering the value of my home, which I want to sell, so he is negatively impacting others by not mowing his lawn. In general, it is true that my neighbor's bad lawn habits are negatively impacting others, no matter which world we're at, making it necessarily true. This implies it must apply to the possible world in which my neighbor won the lottery. So, since, in this possible world, my neighbor won the lottery and has plenty of time and money, it becomes his duty to spend it on cutting his lawn. In other words, in this possible world, he should mow his lawn. Now, if I could oblige him to mow his lawn in some world, I could oblige him to mow his lawn in any world. After all, he's spending his money on lottery tickets instead of mowing the lawn! Therefore, it is necessarily true that my neighbor should mow his lawn. So, we bring it to our world, and I can conclude it is true that my neighbor should mow his lawn.
@@bartholomewhalliburton9854 I object to your objection to his objection. And if you ask me why, I object to that in advance.
what about math being the greatest thing @@bartholomewhalliburton9854
Excited to witness another logic bomb dropped by one of my favorite atheist content creators!
Quick solution if presented with the argument:
"I can imagine a universe where there is no god, all events occur from natural events and random chance. If god is omnipotent and must therefor exist in all possible universes then by the fact of one universe not containing god, that must mean none do."
Simple, just use their own circular logic against them. That is the eternal flaw of arguments based in circular logic.
Except I don’t believe there’s a possible world God doesn’t exist...Here’s why....I don’t believe something can come from nothing EVER...And I’m not using the word “nothing” like Lawrence Krauss or some modern day scientists do when they really mean a quantum vacuum...So if there’s a 0% chance that something comes from nothing and all our evidence shows that time space and matter come from nothing, then I can easily say this...If out of say 1 million possible worlds 0% of them will have something come from nothing...so in every single world it will need an UNCAUSED being that ALWAYS existed and created time space and matter and in turn is timeless spaceless immaterial personal and Logical
@@ivorymars3845 If you believe that "not requiring a cause" is a possible characteristic to have, and you're going to use that as the basis for belief in God as a necessary being, then you have to explain:
1. What about God allows him to not require a cause (aside from just including it in his definition, since that's arbitrary and can be assigned to any concept)
2. Why only God can have the characteristic of not requiring a cause (because if even 1 other thing could conceivably have it, God wouldn't be the only solution to your observed dilemma)
3. Why eternality of the observed reality is not a valid solution to the chain of causation.
Nathanael because he’s God. These are characteristics only attributed to God. If something else has the same characteristic but lacks other characteristics then it is not God. You don’t need to explain why X only does Y and other don’t because Y is attributed to X. Y is not attributed to anything else because from our knowledge it isn’t.
@@miracleman.0126 That the definition of special pleading.
I can attribute a characteristic to any entity I want. If you're going to argue that a concept has a monopoly on that characteristic, you need to DEMONSTRATE that that's logically the case. Asserting "because it's God" means you are only presupposing the exclusivity of God's characteristics and haven't actually shown that no other possible concept could hold them.
I can logically conceive of a donut that was not caused to exist.
This is not incoherent because according the narrative, not being caused to exist is coherent.
God is not the only concept that can be imagined as uncaused.
Litamusicofficial I can imagine a world where matter preexists from time, meaning matter existed before time thus it has no beginning and simply exists, I can also imagine a world where time doesn’t start until the expansion of the matter begins thus there is no time before and there is no need for a cause
A 17 (18 year old now?) casually debunking the best logical argument theists have ever come up with for their faith. That's funny.
lanseri it's beautiful and gives me some hope for this generation.
lanseri I've seen many people commenting on his age like this. It makes me feel like I'm *really* young, aha. Everyone else on this channel seems to be older. I'm out of place.
Remember that it took a few thousand years for someone to realize why Zeno's Paradox was not really one. We are only now reaching a point of understanding from all of the science, math, literature, experience, debates, thinking, pondering to coalesce what, at one time, was considered deep and complex into something more rigorous and understandable. Yes, today it only takes a well-considered, well-learned, and studious 17/18 year old to debunk poor logical arguments. And we must confess that these so-called 'best logical arguments' in support of Christianity are not really that amazing.
lanseri of course,Alex can casually debunk these arguments as,they are from the stone ages and have never been updated,hence,they will be easy to disprove. It s intriguing that most thiests of today,think the same way,stone age ppl did
People can do amazing things at a really young age, for example play violin at age 6. But it's really rare for such a young person to be able to argue so well at 18. This requires a really profound understanding of the world.
I still can't wrap my head around how the ontological argument persuades anyone who has graduated high school.
"I don't understand it, so it must be wrong."
@@artistsanomalous7369 "I don't understand it, so it must be right."
@@artistsanomalous7369 Oh thats a good one. Anybody proving your argument wrong just doesn't understand it. Goes to show the standard of religious argumentation
@@rickfan7
"Sir, I have found you an argument. I am not obliged to find you an understanding"
@@artistsanomalous7369 Ironic
Nice video! I'm also a science enthusiast and around your age (17). The future is bright😁! Greetings from Germany
Marco P. Hes 18
Ali Jr. He said 'around' his age, so not necessarily exactly the same age
ok mate
Hallo
"The future is bright😁! Greetings from Germany"
On what possible basis could one claim that the future is bright? Wishful thinking comes to mind, especially from Germany.
You just covered 20% if my alevel philosophy exam lol you’re better than my teacher
Hey ima o levels student and there isnt any philosophy subject in o levels is there any philosophy subject in a levels?
@@fardin4011 there is a level philosophy and a level religious studies which includes a large aspect of philosophy
@Joseph: Joseph, my man, I won't ask why you haven't, rather, ask your self what you need to do to study philosophy.
(if that is truly your sincere wish.)
@@charlesmadison1384 hey, so are you an atheist
@@fardin4011 philosophy and ethics as one combined subject.
Even in the argument God has to be morally perfect, but yet in the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran, God has laid out his definition of morality that he doesn't follow in the stories.
'Even in the argument God has to be morally perfect, but yet in the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran"
But we aren't talking about the bible the torah and quran. We are talking about the existence of a perfect being.
Bill Asbury God is the perfect being. God is the “writer” of these holy books. Therefore, the books have perfect morality?
Well if stoning gays and condoning slavery is morality, go ahead.
bill assbury:
Are you implying that such a perfect being exists? Which fictional being are you ascribing the title of "perfect" to? yahweh, the evil, slavery loving, genocide demanding war-god?
It's an argument for a God, not a specific God.
@@Broctis I dont understand why people always think salvery in the Bible was immoral. Would it be better to starve? Would be better to live in poverty? A lot of the time slavery was more like a bond servant. Now if you want to make the claim that stoning a gay man was immoral you would have to prove that being gay is moral. God is just in punishing sin and corruption, and God has said people in homosexuality have been given over to a reprobate mind.
However, what we see in the New Testament after the resurrection is redemption everyone has an opportunity to follow the Lord. I invite and encourage you to follow Jesus Christ, for those you believe in Him and recognize their sin will be saved threw Him.
If God exists, he exists.
That actually made me laugh.
'Tis true
do you exist?
ifyoueverfind78 If i exist i exist
The same applies to god
Yea and if you exist you exist...do you exist? ;)
Stephen Fletcher perhaps
I absolutely love the way you address the topic (every topic). Very intelligent and coherent. Well done, mate! Keep doing what you doing CosmicSkeptic
You can imagine a world where I have all perfections. Existence is a perfection. A being with all perfections is god. Therefore, I am god.
I don't think you are far off.
@@kristofkovacs1742 I think he is waay off. Existence is a perfection of what? Existence carries no moral categories and as such is not a perfection of anything. Such think leads to non-sense. A rock has existence therefore a rock is god. a tree is god, a river is god, a bird is god. This of course leads to pantheism ie god is all.
The Ontological Argument has been given great attention by philosophers and theologians, some of serious reputation. To not fully understand it, which I admit is difficult, takes a good deal of effort.
Not wise to trivialize.
@@BillyBike416 absolute copuim
@@bigmanbarry2299 You say "absolute copuim".
I say "Not absolute copuim"
So where do we go from here?
Except for nothing is perfect except for God. Youre defining perfection with an imperfect intellect lol
It always found funny that an all-powerful omni-potent being in all its wisdom cares so much about how many goats people have and what they do with their genitals.
Maybe he just gets really bored sometimes and screws with us for his amusement. But he already knows exactly what we're going to do in reaction. Being God is probably a living hell. Damn, now I feel sorry for the (non-existent) guy.
The "Ontological Argument" is the dumbest word salad ever spat out.
I can dismiss it with one sentence: The concept of perfection is subjective for almost all that is not simply mathematics.
Except such an objection has been raised and dismissed very easily by those who favor the ontological argument. You're assumption of subjectivity is what is the downfall here, especially when discussing a God who by Anselm's definition is a "supremely perfect being which none greater can exist."
@@TCurry2215
"has been raised and dismissed"
That's not even an argument.
Try harder.
@@ChristianIce well it's not an argument because I wasn't giving an argument but ok 😂😂. I was just stating such an objection has been brought up to those who support the ontological argument and it has been easily dismissed by them. It also completely misunderstands the argument to raise such an objection. Your objection essentially takes for granted that subjectivism is true which would lead to your reasoning begging the question. If anyone would need to try harder I believe it would be you. There is a reason why OA is one of the most tricky and frustrating arguments for the existence of God. Kant probably had the best objection to it though he himself believed in God.
@@TCurry2215
Well, every consideration that comes from human mind, including whatever you think is "perfection", is subjective.
To say that "somebody dismissed that" is just laughable.
At least try to present an argument, or you are just wasting my time.
@@ChristianIce I mean you're begging the question by saying "everything is subjective" that is an argument in itself that you (or anyone for that matter) has ever actually proved successfully. Something supremely perfect is just that...perfect in every way...if you say that is subjective then it cannot in fact be perfect because it can always have something that could be better about it in respect due to limitations of the one holding said idea of their "perfect" being therefore a subjectively perfect being fails to be utterly perfect. Perfection in this instance is almost undeniably an objective concept and claiming it is subjective seems rather wrong-headed.
I had a friend who tried to use this argument and his exact words were just to imagine a perfect being, so I then trolled him and thought of myself. when he found out he was pissed.
Scottie Glover - I'm with you.
The argument doesn't need such a long time to debunk.
In every case it can be dismissed your way:
Demand a definitive answer to what it means to be maximally perfect _before_ posing the argument.
And that stupid argument dies right there!
+Scottie Glover
Well you actually did better than WLC... the perfect being YOU imagined can be shown to exist :D His stays a fantastic delusion.
1 Corinthians 2:14
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
King James Version (KJV)
Your friend made a mistake by using the word "imagine" instead of "conceive". When Philosophers use the word conceive, they are not saying to imagine something. This is clearly a mistake since we can imagine all sorts of things. But that does not NECESSARILY mean that those things exist. Rather, to conceive of something is to state that it is POSSIBLE for such a thing to exist. And if you follow the premises correctly, the conclusion is therefore, God must exist.
0:29 an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that helps starving children is greater than God, but isn't God. Ontological argument refuted.
I'm looking forward to your published paper using this argument!
in a world of imperfection, and sin, and fall from grace, which is explained as original sin,an evil spirit called satan, and his demons working on the earth... and the evil we have inherinted, including deaths of innocents..then maybe a peferct place called heaven is a good thing mean if the world is so imperfect downright evil. but we now you ll like this imperfect world rather then heaven.
Yes, but this god didn't foresee that those starving children would lose there souls at the expense temporary satiation of hunger and of not feeling the need to call upon God to meet their spiritual needs.These Children would be rescued from the temporal suffering of a passing world that is but a blip compared to eternity. This god would meet the ultimate definition of not seeing the forest for the trees, of only discounting the present, while ignoring the fatal ramifications of what lie ahead at the end of the children's earthly existence. Looks like if such a God is omniscient, he can't also be omnibenevolent; and if not all omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, then in what sense could such a being rightly be called God?
@@ScottRachelson777 why would they lose there souls? omni benevolent...hmmm. I m not sure how to define that term, but I don t think that is god, in the strict definition of it. god does send people to hell,[or there is another way of saying this] that may not be omni benevolent per se...what I m saying is god is all powerful, however, he also can judge people...and he constructs the rules as he sees fit. this might sound very vague to you, but it is hard to explain in such a small space here. put it another way, there are people who are redeemed, and go to heaven, and there are a lot of people in heaven. but if ted bundy didn t truly repent, there is a good chance he is in hell. there is a judgement side to god...that may be all powerfull, but not omnibenevolent?
@@ifyoueverfind78 I guess your point might hold weight under your definition, but I don't think that's how God's benevolent nature is characterized in the Bible. Remember, "there is a way that seems right to a man but in the end leads to death. Our standards of goodness and justice are seen and conceived from such a limited context that our evaluations and judgements of which acts are good and bad are steeped in shortsightedness because we don't have all the relevant evidence necessary to judge the heart of any man to the degree that a perfectly just and fair God can. "Our hearts are the most deceitful of its members, desperately wicked, who can know it?" My answer -- Only GOD can!
I just noticed the added '0' in the '10,000 SUBSCRIBERS' board 😂😂😂
2 years later
Now 272,000 at 26July2019. Gooo Alex.
Man, UA-cam is so cheap: They're no longer sending 100,000 subscriber signs to people-just stickers with "O" written on them.
nexkyrouac it's a '0'
What do Jesus and a clearance sale have in common? No returns.
Paul Smith Good job fulfilling prophecy
1 Corinthians 2:14
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
King James Version (KJV)
Wayne Lawson
Cherry picking the Bible is not honest!
Why dont you quote the slavery,the gnashing teeth of Hell,the contradictory claims of suffering,the false Prophecies etc
@@waynelawson1235 Convenient..
@@rationalsceptic7634 Why don't you read the Exodus with understanding and not with skepticism. If you read it with the understanding you would understand that bible is very clear that you can't beat slaves to submission, because as it was *said* you were once slaves of Egypt, treat everybody with respect and love them. Bible is very clear that if you hurt the slave and break his tooth, leg, rib, whatever, you are supposed to release him and pay the damage that you have done.
As for the other claims I am unaware of them. Prophecy may not be fulfilled then but it may be fulfilled now or in the future.
These religious "philosophical" arguments always sound like a child came up with them.
Interesting. But still you are unable to comprehend.
It’s not a lack of comprehension that’s the problem. It’s a willingness to accept an apologetic claim that you simply would not accept in any other circumstance.
@@geraldpchuagmail Its total pretentious verbal jerking off .
DeusExAstra perhaps you don’t understand them very well.
religions are childish.
I can imagine a possible world without a god...
maybe this is that world :p
Tricky part is defining god. As soon as you do, a religious person will move the goal posts. This is what was overlooked in this video. God is never defined in the ontological argument beyond the three properties (which are strawmanned in this video).
you can define god as "nothing". Because "nothing" means the absence of space and matter, and if space and matter don't exist then neither does time. But you can't assign the property of existence to "nothing" .Nothing is just a concept and it;s not compatible with reality or logic or whatever, it can' exist. What does that mean? If nothing can't exist , then there is mandatory for something to exist. But then again something can't come out of nothing , or can it? Well , what if you split "nothing" in something and -something. Together they are nothing, so you don't break any rule so far. To sum it all up :1) existence is a mandatory thing and doesn;t need a god 2) The god you define in your comments is actually "nothing" and you can't assign anything to it , therefore talking about him is pointless.
Would he need to exist and would he question his own existence and if he was perfect why did he feel the need to create a material world? If he had a need or needs then he was lacking some sort of happiness or a feeling of being incomplete, meaning that he wasn't perfect. The frightening scenario is that he is indeed imperfect and all powerful or just very powerful, has no moral code that applies to himself and he gets kicks out of creating imperfect worlds with all the pain and suffering caused by his imperfect beings. We are like characters caught up in his computer game, a very complex one that can go on for millions of years. Of course the religious leaders tell you he's good, how are they going to sell the religion otherwise?
Roolooth
If there is an all powerful God that is evil, then evil would inherently be moral in a universe by his design (unless he hated himself). So no, I think the better answer is - like any other rule - morality just can't be applied here.
I am reminded of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341 BC). He asked: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is God able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then where does evil come from? Is God neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Except Epicurus wasn't talking about the God of the Bible.
@@caiawlodarski5339 which god are you talking about?
Rollingrockink III so what?
They can be asked for any god anyway duh... you are trying to digress
Since we are trapped in time a all powerful God and all good God could have done something about evil and we wouldn't notice.
I get it.....Mary Poppins is God.
Michael Booth eeeeeeeeaaaaaatttt SOUP!
I like to call this argument as 'defining god into existence.'
Remember what Alvin Plantinga's version of the argument says in premise 1. All it says is that it is POSSIBLE for a MGB (i.e God) to exist. The reason why God is defined as a maximally great being to begin with is because this is true just by definition, as he puts it. All you have to do is just think about it. If God does exist, then of course He will have to have what Alvin calls "maximum excellence". Maximum excellence is to have nothing BUT great making properties and that has to be true in EVERY possible world. To have maximum excellence, you would need to be all knowing, all powerful, all good, etc. God has traditionally been defined this way for centuries.
Now God MAY not have all those properties, but that is actually besides the point because nobody knows. We don't need to know every attribute God has in order for this argument to work. All it states that if it is possible that a MGB exists (i.e God) then by following the written out modal logic formula, the conclusion must be that therefore a MGB (i.e. God) exists.
@@ProoFzorz
But even presuming that (let alone YOUR specific God) is just circular reasoning. He exists because he conceptually exists, therefore he exists. Zero evidence
Edit: Also 6:51 demonstrates his saying it’s possible to jump from a that God existing in *some* to *all* is ludicrous
@@Jonathan-A.C. "But even presuming that (let alone YOUR specific God) is just circular reasoning. He exists because he conceptually exists, therefore he exists. Zero evidence"
The Ontological argument does NOT use circular reasoning. This confirms to me that you have very little understanding of the argument.
What this argument tries to establish is that if it is at least possible that a maximumly great being exists in some possible world, then it follows logically and necessarily that a MGB exists in EVERY possible world. Meaning this one. By using the modal logic formula.
@@Jonathan-A.C. Basically, it would only be circular reasoning if the first premise of the argument stated that a MGB DOES exist, therefore, a MGB exists. Or if the first premise of the argument stayed the same and the last premise of the argument stated the same thing, that it is possible that a MGB exists. But this argument doesn't.
It starts of by stating a fact that it is POSSIBLE for a MGB to exist. Then following modal logic, the conclusion is that therefore a MGB necessarily exists in this world because a MGB HAS TO exist in EVERY possible world.
@@ProoFzorz
It’s literally just “God exists, therefore God exists”.
Again, can’t be maximum in some, and the entire idea comes from the fact that you assume God can exist. Literally debunked just within that time skip in the video I linked.
And that’s exactly what it is. It literally says that said God exists, therefore he exists.
Which would actually imply that he isn’t Maximally Powerful, because he can only be somewhat possible, meaning that no God is maximally powerful within said logic. Even just by the logic, there’s zero actual evidence of any God existing; it’s just a train of thought
THIS IS THE BEST VIDEO I'VE EVER WATCHED MY WHOLE LIFE. IT SEE LIKE NONSENSE BUT IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE THAT god DOESN'T EXIST
I find it both confusing and amusing, and I'm also respectful in the fact that you made every word all caps, except for god. :)
I Think, Therefore I Covfefe
Hahaha!!
Anti-theist Atheist for me, it's green tea.
Bigly
Also:
If he is morally correct in EVERY world and there are infinite possibilities, then he is morally correct in a world where what we deem morally correct here is morally incorrect there, so he would be partially morally incorrect in both worlds because he is morally perfect in every world.
Cool you made a paradox
That's a valid critique if morality is relative.
The fundamental claim of the theist is that whatever God believes to be good is good, and because his moral stances do not fluctuate in different possible realities, the moral standard would be universally true.
Did you really say "If God exists, then there would be an objective moral standard"?
That's bunk. There would be God's subjective moral standard, and he would definitely have the power to enforce it, but that's about it.
Yes, but if he's omniscient then his subjective moral standard would be objective aka always true because he can't ever be wrong.
@@djixi98 The thing is, what's right and wrong is also subjective
@@BitchChill Thanks for letting us know what's right... oh, wait.
That's true granted that God does not have the power to make something objectively moral or immoral.
It might be difficult to imagine how that's possible, but the limits of our imagination do not in any way hinder what is logically conceivable.
Is it virtuous because god approves, or does god approve because it is virtuous? The religious concern for 'objective' morality has to answer Plato's question because if morality is determined by god and you as a believer decide to carry out god's moral edicts then are you acting morally? I would say that you are acting out of self-interest unless of course you regard god's moral edicts as morally independent of god. God's existence does not make an objective moral standard, just as the biblical endorsement of slavery is not an objective moral standard.
I am a theist and this argument hurts my head lol. Great job on clarification and this video! Keep up the great work!
if god exists, god exists.
and if I exist, I exist.
I am like god
Well you are created in his image :P
raffiking1 You're only like God if God exists.
@@stefantherainbowphoenix
No, if god exists, god exist
Therefore, if I exist, I exist.
@@peiranzhang4283 All right, circular reasoner.
I love the logic that, if an omnipotent being theoretically COULD exist, then it'd be too powerful to be bound by the limits of our own uncertainty. An all-powerful being wouldn't be all-powerful if it were limited only to the realm of possibility. Therefore, the existence of an omnipotent god is made certain solely by its own hypotheticality.
"There is a possible world where a M A X I M A L L Y G R E A T being exists."
"Yeah, a god is possible. But your god is logi"
"But if it's M A X I M A L L Y G R E A T Then it exists in all possible worlds!"
"Uhh no, that'd just mean it wouldn't be maxim"
"And that means it exists in our world!"
"You know what. A world where god is a flying spaghetti monster can exist. And that means that the god of this world is a flying spaghetti monster because it is maximally great."
"What no, that doesn't make sen"
"D O Y O U D A R E D E F Y O U R S P A G H E T T I O V E R L O R D S! Y O U R S I N F U L N E S S S H A L T N O T G O U N P U N I S H E D A N Y L O N G E R!"
That's a problem with religion, they say there's a maximally powerful being exists everywhere, but then they say it's only one and if so he's only able to "watch upon" our reality. And even if we didn't take in consideration the multiverse idea, it would still be unclear that if there was a god, would he have created our planet, galaxy or maybe the whole space?
Talentia Yes, IF this argument worked (which it doesn't), then it would prove a maximally great *thing*. The probability of that *thing* being God (of the Bible) is exactly 0, because I can make up infinitely many gods that fit the bill. (The easiest way to make infinite possibilities is to just ask how many fingers will the maximally great being have. A being with 5 fingers is one, but I can think of a being with 0 or 10 or 10^10000000 fingers. You get my point)
Matti Kauppinen
Yes I definitely got your point and it's so correct.
And I just realised how selfish people are.
The problem in this scenario is that in bible it says, the god created our planet of nothing (even skipping the fact that matter can't be made of nothing but still) and when they say so they mean just our planet, or maybe our solar system, our galaxy or even the space? And these days we believe that there is life on other planets and in other galaxies, what about that then?
Most of religion doesn't make sense.
+Matti Kauppinen
It at least has no logical pathway to get from "a maximally great being exists" to "this being is the god i call Bob and meet to eat fries and burgers every first saturday in the month except it rains". You cannot even LOGICALLY demonstrate that we would be able to find this being much less that it even is known... and in return, just because you have called something you DID find "god", you cannot guarantee that it is the Ontologically logical "Maximally great being" without measurements, comparisons and testing out all attributes towards maximality...
It is and stays a mental circlejerk. You do not find god by such means and you could not know if what you find IS god. Pretending otherwise means you can just as well stay with "god exists because i say so"
"P1: If God exists, he exists.
P2: If God exists, he exists.
C: God exists."
It's like this every time.
Either the arguments are as such, or "Look for God and you will find him."
As a child, I was a catholic due to my educación. I started questioning my faith as a renacer when I studied philosophy. The ontological argument was for me the last nail in God's coffin.
Then u should do little research on God in Islam, Their is no confussion in God concept in Muslim , that's why in Muslim countries athiest r less as compared to christian country
@@saaem6900 Asking somebody else as if you were some sort of imbecile child, is *not* research. You cannot acquire knowledge by being t-o-l-d- something. If that is not self evident to you it is not worth wasting my time on the matter.
You have my pity for first making the mistake of believing in Catholicism and then but furthering your mistake to then believe in Atheism.
@@vhawk1951kl That is true and this is the flaw both religion and atheism is faced with ;)
Jesus loves all of us, even if we turn away. Just a little reminder that one person's theological argument being not completely coherent does not mean that the point of the argument is more or less valid, merely the argument itself. Likewise many atheistic arguments exist that can be easily debunked. To me the best argument for God is letting Him seek us and watching what He does in our lives. I know that God is real not because someone told me, but because I have seen and heard the miraculous things He does and have felt His overflowing love and mercy, which I hope you will someday experience as well
Half life 3 is great. If it didn't exist it wouldn't be great. So it has to exist because it's great. _So where is it Gabe?_
How could you possibly know if Half Life 3 is great if it doesn’t exist. You know nothing of the nature of Half Life 3.
@@PestoPathogen69 Those who came foresaw the coming of a Half Life 3. It isn't here yet but I know it will be here soon!
Haseeb Rafique thats an entirely different logical problem from the ontological argument
@@PestoPathogen69 oh yeah it is but its just furthering what religious people would go on to say. Its interesting how despite the differences most western/abrahamic faiths argue so similarly
Also any sentence beginning with "if" contains unconfirmed information.
If we look to confirmed information....
If 1+1 = 2...
Oh look, I just proved that 1+1 = 2 is not confirmed!
@@Nathan-tg4gu No you fool, you are meant to continue the sentence. If 1+1=2 then 2=1+1. The statement 2=1+1 is unconfirmed as long as 1+1=2 isn't confirmed. But since 1+1=2 is confirmed that implies that 2=1+1. Simple logic. OP is correct. Please think before posting.
Irrelevant You’re missing the point. Finish the sentence however you like. “If 1+1=2, then grass is yellow.” Complete sentence. Doesn’t confirm anything. OP said that any “if” sentence has confirmed information. Therefore any if sentence which does not proves this rule false.
If “1+1=2” is confirmed, then change it.
“If the goldbach conjecture is correct, then there are an even number of stars in the universe.”
If sentence, through and through. Now please tell me what information in that sentence is confirmed.
@@Nathan-tg4gu 2=1+1 is derived from 1+1=2
Legend says that Jesus will reply
Jens-ole Larsen Someone with the account name "Jesus" and a profile picture will reply
but magneto will comment first before jesus
my dick is called big windu dick
We'll see about that
Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear... Atheist fool
I was an Atheist for a long time. After watching a few of Alex's videos, I came to realize that I had completely dismissed logic from my thinking and my arguments. Thanks to Alex, I found God. Thank you Alex! Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
"Logically Incoherent" would be the best description for most apologetics arguments. Thanks for that!
who gives thumbs down? seriously, you are one of the nicest UA-cam atheists I watch, with amazingly good content.
question .... what if the universe is infinite, and we are just at this point from the begining. I mean, even infinite number string has a begining, unless you go negative, but time doesn't work that way.
question 1: He dismisses others opinions too easily. Lack of understanding or sympathy doesn't imply correctness. Too many atheists (and other religious people) don't seem to agree with this.
question 2: Time is a construct of human perception. Scientifically there is no reason why it should only flow one way. But practically, we need to understand how things change (which is why we measure time) to survive.
k.... so he's not delving into the circular
arguments that happen. he's arguments are still sound. where is your point of contention with what he said?
Not necessarily. The "contradictions" he presents can be sidestepped with the understanding that "god" exists outside of time, space, and most importantly logic. If god exists, then "he" created these things and are not restricted by them. This isn't an insult, it's just a repercussion of believing your undefendable belief is more right than any other undefendable belief.
You can't say that things exists outside matter and space. You also can't say things exist outside logic. And you can't use logic to deny logic. What is the matter with you>? Assuming what you said was true (even if it can't logically be) then there that god cannot interact with us because he is not compatible with reality. And there is no evidence that outside logic would mean above logic. Do you see how far you religious people have to go to make god believeable , how far you stretch your ideas? Why don't you accept the fact that the god you claim to exist is logically not possible to exist?
noah schaefferkoetter well put, "side step". my belief can not be contrasted against your claim. and side stepping an argument is disingenuous, and wrong. how could I be wrong? something that can be infinite, can have a begining.
and you still haven't said where you disagree with what he said, just that he didn't hit every point. what did he say wrong?
Yup.
You nailed it.
I'm not sure why you mentioned that if the god could exist its morality would be objective.
Other than that, damn... Theism is empty, crippled, illogical and dying.
I entirely agree with this comment. Even if god exists, that doesn't mean having people tortured is right
The biggest problem I see in this argument is how it never explains what "greatest" means. Why is being sentient great? Besides, "perfection" is absolutely arbitrary. There cannot be a "perfect island", because there is no objective standards for islands to meet. There is also no such standard for intelligent beings. And another funny thing, if god has all the perfect atributes, how mexican is he? Perfectly? How experienced is he at killing puppies?
I'd like to know just how _maximally perfect_ is the penis of this god... ;-)
Roberto Esquivel Cabrera has the world's largest penis at 48 cm long (18.9 inches), but does their god have a more _maximal_ penis than him???
DrMakak That's the biggest flaw for me too. Thomas Aquinus made the claim that "something to be" is absolutely subjective, which leads (for me) to the conclusion that it is up to you (the thinker) to imagine yourself what the maximum could be - but then somehow maximise that beyond imagination to fit inside the ontological argument. That's childish - in my opinion - for a debate. That's kind of the level of children saying "You can't count to infinity!" and the other says "Of course I just did."
That depends on what makes a penis perfect. I can imagine following possibilities: 1) It's infinitely long and thick, probably needing a separate infinite universe to contain it. 2) It's the penis that would be the result of asking every sentient creature about a perfect penis and then making it average (might look a little dolphiny tho). 3) It's a schrodinger's penis that is perfect for the needs of person observing it - looks like your ex's penis, like that one pornstar you love etc. if you're a hetero male I guess it's 1cm shorter than your own to make you feel good? If you're a lesbian I have no idea, probably it's plastic and double-sided.
Well my idea of a _maximally perfect_ penis would involve _maximally perfect_ sex.
But since their god isn't married (is he???) then its godly penis would have to substitute sexual intercourse for something else: The _maximally perfect wank._
Presumably Jesus would just step outside for a moment while their god rubbed out a really good one with his _maximally perfect_ penis.
;-)
Wankin' is supposed to be a sin as far as I know, so it's not an option. The only last thing the godly penis could be used for unsinfuly would be peeing. Maybe it's a fire-hose-penis after all?
“Man is a stranger in his own skin.”
GK Chesterton
Think about the flying spaghetti monster! See he exists!
"Think about the flying spaghetti monster! See he exists!"
Unfortunately, you misunderstand the argument. If M-O-N-S-T-E-R has the properties of G-O-D then Monster IS God. You are merely playing with semantics.
@@travisdixon-oneill1558 Yahweh is God
So if Marvel said a character was maximally great and powerful and exists in every possible world, and the Marvel multiverse includes our world, we can assume that character exists in our world? Got it.
Upon learning this argument in college, i pounded my fist on the table and said "this is the dumbest thing ive ever heard!"
From Wikipedia:
"Since its initial proposal, few philosophical ideas have generated as much interest and discussion as the ontological argument. Nearly all of the great minds in Western philosophy have found it worthy of their attention."
Maybe, just maybe, there's something about the argument you've missed.
@@artistsanomalous7369
Maybe the desperate attempts of religious armchair philosophers to define their gods into existence is simply fascinating to actual philosophers.
Maybe you should learn why so many philosophers are fascinated by the argument... and think that it fails.😂
@@ramigilneas9274
If we always trusted our intitial gut reactions, where would that have left Copernicus, Newton, and especially Einstein?
In _On the Origin of Species_ Darwin even says:
_To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real_
@@artistsanomalous7369
Initial gut reaction: The argument is absurd.
After listening to philosophers argue about the argument: It’s still absurd and fascinating that anyone thinks that it isn’t.😂
@@ramigilneas9274
You're welcome to disagree with the argument as long as you can identify what is wrong with it. Bertrand Russell said, "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."
If your level of sophistication doesn't extend beyond a passive, juvenile dismissal to the effect of "it's ridiculous and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid", you should probably just stick to political discourse of the kind you might find on Twitter, and not try to engage in philosophical debates.
Me: Not really listening and just playing on my phone.
Cosmic: say it with me kids
Me: oh, uhhhhhhh a circular argumen-
Cosmic: logically incoherent
Me: ...
“Unicorns are pure, magical, pretty... they’re the greatest thing ever!”. “If it doesn’t exist, then it’s not the greatest thing ever!”. “Damn, you got me. But I still think unicorns are the best so I guess this means that unicorns exists.”
The ontological argument must then also ask:
"Is it possible for 2 separate maximally great Beings to exist in any possible world"? Then, what about 3, 4, 5 etc.
This will lead to an ontological conclusion that there are an infinite amount of separate maximally great Beings (Gods) in every possible world.
While I generally agree with Alex' conclusions in the video (and shockingly found this about two days after a friend and I had been discussing the same argument and came to the same conclusions), I don't think this stands up. Accepting the Ontological Argument's premises for the sake of exploring this question, I think a fairly easy way to rebut this would be to suggest that a maximally great being, especially one that is omnipotent and omniscient (ignoring the mentioned incompatibility, again, for the sake of the argument's premises to explore the question), would be exactly identical to and therefore the same being as any another transcendant maximally great being. Consider this in shorter form: A maximally great being certainly encompasses all other maximally great beings, thus rendering them the same.
This is my favorite boneheaded-nonsense argument. It's so adorably clueless. God is the greatest possible being, and a god that exists is greater than a god that does not exist. Therefore: god exists. Hilarious! LOL!
"To Christopher Hitchens losing a debate" Can't imagine it in any possible world!
whyspoppabear watch him try to defend the iraq war then. michael parenti clearly came out on top in that debate.
I can imagine a world without a maximally great being in it.
That being wouldn't exist in all possible worlds because it doesn't exist in the one I've just conceived of.
If the being doesn't exist in all possible worlds it's not maximally great, therefore it doesn't necessarily exist in the actual world.
This was one of the first writings we had to read in one of my philosophy classes in college. I remember being baffled as to how anyone could possibly think this is a good argument, especially now...
How exactly did they go about teaching this?
Can you exactly explain why it ISN'T a good argument? Of course, it looks like there's something wrong with it, but what exactly is? The video is just a critique of semantics, not a refutation of the ontological argument.
@@pseudoplotinus It definitely is a refutation of the ontological argument. The assumptions and premises are quite flawed, as Alex demonstrated. This makes the fundamental logic of the argument fall apart, therefore invalidating it.
@@stirpiano He didn't demonstrate it, though. As an atheist, it would be difficult to debate and discuss any sort of especially metaphysical conception or idea, since his philosophy or and point of view of his argument lies solely on the debatable and sophomoric premise that objective reality is materialist, and there is nothing else beyond what we humans can experience, which is absurd.
_to Christopher Hitchens losing a debate_ well done. Very nice video, and, as usual, sharp analysis.
The ultimate god argument - If god exists, then god exists
One of my many issues with this argument is that it assumes that there exist "other possible worlds"
Other possible worlds is not the multiverse. It’s simply an abstraction in modal logic en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world
BarcaFans HD I'm aware of the abstraction of modal logic. What I'm saying is that the argument assumes that other possible worlds aren't just hypothetical possibilities, but that they actually exist separate from our own reality.
Possible worlds are literally hypothetical situations
BarcaFans HD I am aware. I'm saying that this argument ignores the fact that they are just hypotheticals.
ua-cam.com/video/RQPRqHZRP68/v-deo.html&app=desktop
You don't need this level of complication to prove or disprove god, you just need to answer one question truly without self-deception:
Is my life better with god or without god?
And no philosopher or scientist can answer this question except YOU.
Craig is so self deluded and indoctrinated,he conflates Faith with Facts,Causality with Being..he is merely looking into a Mirror to see the God he wants!
John White
Well, all of Craigs arguments have been demonstrated to be fallacious.
He openly admitted that most philosophers disagree with him.😂
Rami Gilneas
So why doesnt he face reality?
@@rationalsceptic7634
Because a voice in his head tells him that Christianity is true even if all of the evidence says otherwise.
i think causality is one thing, but perhaps it is religious experience, which science, unquote, assumes invalid. ie. when one is religious, sometimes its based on religious experience. there are other arguments that may point to a creator, the prime mover or causality and so on. you are assuming god is invalid anyway. then I guess he would be choosing his religion- so to speak...
"self deluded"
Replace God with a Unicorn, a Loud fart, a Silly joke, a Thousand legged Tiger
During my first semster at Religious Studies, on Christianity I. course, i read Anselm's argument. I felt dumb, because i still could not understand why this should be a logical argument. :) Turns out I was actually dumb, because my presumption was it was supposed to be logical. For some reason, this still happens to me from time to time. I don't know if i have some deeply rooted authority bias or something.
It has proper logical words, and a pretty logical structure. It's very tricky to identify where the problem with it is. As far as I can tell the problem is God's definition is too strong from the beginning. It's a bit sneaky.
yeah i knew this argument was bogus after i heard it for the first time, this just puts that to words
@2:19 - I still don't understand how an objective moral standard follows from God's existence. See Euthyphro's Dilemma. A valuation is still mind-dependent, and therefore subjective, even if that mind is an omniscient God.
Edit: To expand - there's a difference between a truly objective standard and an _objectivized_ standard (i.e. merely regarded as objective).
"It is not assumed that the Tathāgata exists after death. Neither is it assumed that he does not exist, or both, or neither. It is not assumed that even a living Tathāgata exists. Neither is it assumed that he does not exist, or both, or neither."
"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."
They assumed that all worlds that are not actual are possible, but didn't say anything about the worlds that are impossible, and that's where a thing with their definition belongs (contradicts logic). Therefore, all other arguments are invalid.
Both physics and maths work consistently with the concept of infinity. The simplest example is projective geometry. Another is the Riemann sphere in complex analysis. This has no impact on the essence of your argument. But it is incorrect to say that the concept of infinity is logically incoherent - it can be made coherent with the correct conceptual infrastructure. As for thanking us, Alex, it is we who must thank you - for a fantastic, fantastically interesting and informative channel. Thank you.
Since when is "Christopher Hitchens losing a debate" not logically incoherent?
Go to UA-cam. Type in Christopher Hitchens. Watch him debate. You'll get what Alex meant.
allasar he was wrong but he still pretty much won all the debates he was in lmao
It's a good thing this channel exists...
P1: if I have a girlfriend, I have a girlfriend.
P2: if I have a girlfriend, I have a girlfriend.
Conclusion, I have a girlfriend. Yeah I guarantee that’s false.
Eh, Ik this is a joke but i don’t think this is the best analogy for this,
Love your videos, but there's just one thing thats been bugging me for quite a while. The omnipotence Paradox actually can have a third viable option, I think. It is just something me and some friends have discussed sometimes internally in a group of atheists. If omnipotence actually means all powerful as in "Can do absolutely everything" that means that he necessarily has to be able to change the way logic works if presented with a question such as this. This version of omnipotence would also erase all other paradoxical values of god since... well he could just change how our understanding of logic works.
I don't know if it makes any real sense, and it certainly does not validate an all loving creator (which weirdly doesn't love everyone), but in my opinion it seems like an argument some christian should have brought up by now.
I have followed your channel for quite some time and I find it most inspiring indeed. Your philosophical rules and "twists" are sometimes hard to follow for someone without the scholastic training, but I enjoy it every time anyway. There is one thought though that crossed my mind recently. Most of your arguments are based on "logic" and philosophical coherence. That's how a rational thinking person argues. But there is one "tempting" quality to religion: Their god is not of this world. He is by all means "supernatural", kind of existing in a different dimension. Therefor we can't see him, communicate with him or "proof" his existence. That's called faith. But if you fantasize about such a supernatural being, you can easily ascribe any quality to him you want. Resulting in the fact, that god doesn't have to follow the rules of human logic or philosophy. He is by all means "outside of the system", which means, everything is possible. All the important things about the god delusion are basically miracles, and in the world of miracles there is no limit whatsoever. It doesn't have to "make sense" in the human understanding, therefor "god works in mysterious ways". So my question to you: How can we argue about something supernatural in a natural, logic, human way? Won't there always be this excuse of "inapplicability"?
This is known as the "god of the gaps" argument and appealing to ignorance.
- I don't know, therefore God.
One question I pose to people who say this is: How do you prove that God is not evil?
Because an evil God can write the bible, proclaim he is good and powerful, and lie about his true nature.
Then every instance of him being evil in the bible would confirm his nature, while every act of good is him "acting in mysterious ways"
If one cannot claim to know God and think like God, one cannot accurately ascribe certain traits to him.
Thank you, the first time I heard this argument I could not believe it, it seemed so illogical to me, yet I could not articulate my view on it, but your "God exists therefore, he exists" really did it for me.
That's not true, mathematically speaking you absolutely can add eternities. Add the line segment of 0-1 and 1-2 and you have added two infinite sets of points, and you get an equally infinite, not more infinite, set of points.
An string of even integers is equal to a string of integers. Just pair the 2 from the first string with a 1 with the second string, 4 from the first string with a 2 from the second string, and beyond into infinity
Ttororong ShawingB but.... wait..... damn it
Ttororong ShawingB they are not equal, since there are elements of one set which are not present in the other, they are just the same size.
This is where I despise any mathematician that spews on about 'aleph-null' et al as 'different SIZED infinities'. Um, how can such a thing exist within the definition of 'infinity'. All infinite sets are infinite (big PERIOD). Therefore, they are all the same size = infinite. As you note correctly, it is the set contents that are not the same.
Robert Templeton there are bigger versions of infinity, but on a number line, you're always talking about countable infinity, so it's always the same size. Aleph null is smaller than Aleph 1, it's defined as such. I think what you need to understand is that most of mathematics has no bases in physics or nature at all, it's all about just numbers and the way they interact given certain parameters. It's usually much like a procedural generation of something, you create a seed, which in this case is whatever axioms or rules you arbitrarily decide to follow, and then just watch what happens, math is the logical unraveling of a knot we didn't tie in the first place. When mathematicians say there are different sizes of infinity, they are correct because they pretty much get to decide if there are or not. We can't confirm a single infinity in our universe, so getting upset about people misconstruing the way they work seems kinda silly.
P1) It's possible that, in some world, there exists a maximally horrible monster. (one that's omniscient, omnipotent, and causes maximum suffering)
P2) Such a monster would be _more_ horrible if it exists in _all_ possible worlds.
C) Therefore, Yahweh exists. ;)
But really, though, where's my maximally horrible monster? This argument isn't very good at shaping reality, is it? :/
Fastest click ever
Cli Roos and beaten by someone 3 minutes earlier...lol
fastest. not earliest lol
The wooden UA-cam plaque in the background of this video made me laugh. I’m sure there’s a good story there.
6:52 logical error on your Part. "A maximally great being exists in some possible worlds" is in itself Not a false Statement, since it does not Claim that a maximally great being does not exist in all possible worlds. Both Statements can be true simultaneously
I love the comment, "You can imagine things that may exist, from unicorns, to leprechauns, to... Christopher Hitchens losing a debate..." I wish he was still here to give a few more Hitch slaps to creationists like Craig and Ken Ham.
Even Hitch admitted, in other words, that he got slapped by his own hitch in his debate v. Craig. Clearly Hitch-slapper lost that debate. Anyone with any firing brain cells could see that!
@@ScottRachelson777 yeah Craig wiped the floor with him. They should have lowered the hoops instead like they joked about 😂
Around 7:20 it seemed you were saying "some" implies "not all," which is not true. If something is true in all possible worlds, and since a world exists, that statement is true in some possible world, namely that world that exists.
That's what I thought too👍🏼
As I understand it, Omnipotent doesn't mean "can do literally everything", but rather "can do every non-contradictory thing", so the rock argument isn't really a serious problem.
A self-contradictory thing isn't even a thing to begin with. So the theist can still assert that God can in fact do everything.
@2:20: "… if god did exist then there would be an objective moral standard."
This is false. If God existed, his moral standard would be just as subjective as yours or mine.
Nah.He will just enforce the standard
@@tobiproductions1140 Enforce *his* standard which, as stated, would be subjective.
A great playlist. Loved it.
However, I found the argument that omnipotence is logically incoherent to be not very convincing. While linguistically, a bachelor is defined as being unmarried and therefore a married bachelor cannot exist, it does not follow that the definition of omnipotence negates its existence. Just because a limited mind has problems exploring the concept of infinity, that does not show that the infinite is impossible.
Still good content deconstructing the ontological argument - I’m just being picky.
My thoughts exactly. Great video, but I wasn't convinced by that as well.
Much like a programmer would be bound by said version of his or her program while in the program, the programmer is not tethered by those paradigms while not in that program.
The programmer could be anything they want to be inside the program, and not cease to be the programmer.
The Ontological girlfriend.
The maximal greatest girlfriend would be beautiful, smart and funny. She would be rich and successful, sexy and supportive. To be maximally great she would have to be totally in love with me and also would have to exist right here and now.
Odd, I used the Ontological argument, and such a girlfriend is possible. So what was wrong?
Maybe it's not possible to logically deduce things into existence.
mabrown666 That 's not the Ultimate Being. You did not use the ontological argument because the argument is only about God (Ultimate Being). Your statement clearly shows you do not understand the ontological argument.
It could be that loving you is not maximally great mabrown :D only maximally foolish SCNR.
Morally perfect in every way....
"Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am A jealous god"