Well then we will have to agree to disagree, since reading CS Lewis led me to Christ. The logical side of me had to be satisfied if I was ever going to find truth.
@@IlyenaYou guys aren't doing much better with the likes of Aron Ra, who once got steam rolled so badly by this "abysmal" man in a debate, that his own audience weren't giving him a break in the comments.
@@zbj4240That applies to you theists as well, if you really want to win our hearts then you will all have to do it in a Christ like manner. Not act like monkeys like the other previous comments on top before you.
I used to think that the ontological argument didn’t work, because of Kant’s criticism about existence not being a property. This was before I heard of the modal version of the argument. The modal version, unlike Anselm’s original version, makes the argument far more clear.
It’s still a horrendously bad argument. First off, I can easily imagine a far superior being to yahweh/allah, but besides that, the entire argument is literlaly no more than saying 1. God can possibly exist 2. So God exist. That’s how circular this argument is.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v The argument doesn't prove the existence of the Christian or Muslim God, but simply God as defined in the argument. You have to accept the existence of God before deciding who God is. IP also put out a video responding to your second objection entitled something like "The Ontological Argument (begging the question?)"
Atheists in 2012: I am green and polkadotted and because I say it, it must be true. Atheists in 2023: I am the opposite sex and because I say it, it must be true unironically.
But it does have fallacies. All we've done here is define God = Maximally Great -> Necessarily Exists, which is then defined as existence in all possible worlds, or 'it cannot not exist' which is the same as 'it exists'. All the ontological argument has done is say "A being that I define to exist, exists", which is a classic 'Begging the Question' fallacy, where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. The only difference is that this premise is hidden behind a bunch of definitions.
1 person in Hell makes his love level utterly void and his hate level infinity. We also have no objective meaning his Bible so his wisdom level is also less than that of the majority of best selling authors. He may have infinite power but he does not use it. We have made far more interesting universes so his creativity is again sub-par. So if a god is a maximally great being he is not real
@@jlupus8804 is this the "you can't have moral standards without god" argument? Because we can. But how do you know your standard, God, is a good standard?
@@DanDan-eh7ul It was not that argument lol. What I was asking Fox was to at least have an alternative to God, but it seemed he was more interested in being contrarian and responsibility-free than he was to having standards. How do i know God is a good standard? That's a good question. I'll give the best answer off the top of my head. The 10 commandments give clear foundations to moral laws. The standard to follow all these laws is "perfection", as God Himself is perfect. There are certain kinds of penalties each violation has to breaking each law- before Hell, these penalties had to be physical in order to foreshadow Hell. There is also forgiveness of sin. The old testament had clean animal sacrifices as that; the new had the Carpenter from Nazareth. What makes them perfect is how they manifest in justice. The moral laws are universally applicable. A forgiving heart is also great for peace. So this all shows, God not only wants justice, but He also wants mercy and peace, and He wants us to want the same as He does. To want these things, it starts with wanting to be Holy (pure) as He is. God's standard keeps in mind character, duty, and consequence. So therefore, God's standard is perfect. Is there a flaw seen in any of this? Can universalism or virtue ethics without God's standard even come close?
I definitely agree with what you said near the end, that if someone is still confused that they should watch this video again. Like you, Michael, I also took a little while before I fully grasped The Ontological Argument. When I was just beginning to study apologetics, and I ran into this argument, I was like a lot of lay atheists who encounter this argument. I was like "Boy, this is garbage!" I loved the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine-Tuning and Moral Arguments, but this argument just seemed like philosophical gibberish. But I took the time to really look into it because I thought "Really smart people like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga use it, so maybe I shouldn't be quite so dismissive of it." Now, it's become one of my favorite arguments! Indeed, I even defend the argument in my book "The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity" (shameless plug). What I love the most about it is that there's only one disputable premise, and also this argument gets you a God with all of the "Omni" attributes. Do a study of comparative religions. What religion has an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, morally perfect, necessary God? This isn't Thor or Loki or Zeus we're talking about! This portrait looks more like Yahweh of Judeo-Christianity! Indeed, that's the point I make in my aforementioned book. I argue that only Christianity has a God who matches the portrait of a Maximally Great Being. Anyway, good work, IP! I love your videos! God bless. :-)
I'm Catholic, and minored in philosophy. I have heard several remarkably bright philosophers (including my professor who was agnostic) say that the ontological argument, properly written, is a sound deductive argument. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true... Sometimes I feel like I get the argument, sometimes I don't... Honest question -- why does this argument not work for, say, "a maximally evil being" or "a maximally bad argument." ?
Id say the structures of a maximally evil being are built differently in a way that makes the premises not compatible. The ontological argument has primarily to do not with God's goodness but his power, creation, scientific laws etc. A maximally good or evil being is irrelevant to the question.
The logic actually does follow from these, but you'd reject the first premise. It's not possible for a maximally evil being to exist, or a maximally bad argument to exist.
The argument works just as well for a maximally great evil (or for a maximally great anything, for that matter). The problem is not with the validity of the argument but with the insistence that “maximally great” is a coherent idea when it is applied without limits. (You are defining something as being at a max, which implies a limitation, and yet conceiving it of being infinite at the same time.)
Here's the fatal flaw in the argument as presented in the video. At around 6:43, the following is stated: "Are there objections to the argument? Yes, but only in Premise 1 since the other premises just follow modal logic and are uncontroversial. The only way for skeptics to debunk this argument is to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist." Premise 1: It is possible that God (Maximally Great Being) exists. A skeptic does not need to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist. That would certainly be sufficient to debunk the argument, but it isn't necessary. One only need point out that no argument has been provided in support of Premise 1 being true. And yes, it is necessary to defend that premise. The speaker says so. In the video by the same author entitled "Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 1)", here: ua-cam.com/video/ixqsZP7QP_o/v-deo.html ... the speaker states "All I need to do is defend Premise 1 of the ontological argument because the other four follow modal logic and are not disputed. So all I need to show is that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist. With that out of the way I want to touch on the first objection which is ..." But how did he get "that out of the way"? He explicitly acknowledges that he needs to DEFEND Premise 1, to SHOW that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist. But that is never done. Instead he shifts the burden of proof onto the skeptic to prove the premise false: "The only way for skeptics to debunk this argument is to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist." No, the argument is debunked by pointing out that the speaker never even attempted to do the one thing he explicitly stated he needed to do: "All I need to do is defend Premise 1". Where is the defense of Premise 1?
I don't fully understand the argument itself, but it was interesting. I especially loved the way you described the omnipotence paradox. I never thought about it like that.
God is a necessary being, nothing can exist without Him; He is foundational. Any possible world requires God to exist in order for it to be. This is true for any possible world. This would include our world, as it is possible, seeing that it has been actualized. Therefore, God exists in all worlds. Which aligns with Him being omnipresent as well.
@@dazaiel8081 I simply can’t I think I can understand it OK, I can’t really pinpoint what in particular I just don’t entirely understand it, thanks wanting to help I appreciate it, also thanks for the reply.
Some questions (as Gaunilo responded to Anselm): 1) Why the MGB is coherent and logical possible? intuitively? Are we so sure of that? 2) Putting the necessary existence into the attributes of the MGB, why isn't a begging question? That requires an indipendent demonstration. 3) Can we make a transition from logic to reality? 4) Why do you explain Plantinga's argument instead Goedel's argument?
@@swazilandandbotswana8856 He does a lot of strawman and leaves out certain studies and evidence that is contrary to his points. However we shouldn't focus upon focusing on refuting atheist claims but on Christ commandments,sadly many don't(including myself which is something I need to change). I highly recommend The Channel A Voice In The Desert,they try to get people to obey Christ and his teachings again when most people don't. Here are some of his videos ua-cam.com/video/wOc4vb0lvPs/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/tAyF0TD-Xec/v-deo.html God bless you
Dembski in his book "Being as Communion" hints at a way to demonstrate premise three by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. Here's my shot at cashing it out. God is conceived of as an omnipotent, omniscient being. This entails that God can realize any possible world. If God exists in some possible world, this entails that in this possible world, God could realize any possible world. If God exists in some possible world, and if some possible worlds include those worlds where God doesn't exist, this entails that in the possible world where God exists, God could create a world in which He doesn't exist. But that's a self-contradiction, since for God to create a world entails His own existence. Thus, for God to exist in some possible worlds but not all possible worlds entails a self-contradiction, which means that the matrix of possible worlds must be all or nothing with respect to God. God either exists in all possible worlds (and thus our own, and thus He must exist) or He exists in no possible worlds. This puts the onus on the naturalist to demonstrate that the concept of God is incoherent, and this is a very tough job.
Hi Anon, My statement was that if the argument I set forth above was valid, the naturalist has to demonstrate that the concept of God is incoherent in order to refute theism. It wasn't a mere assertion. The justification was in the argument I presented, which was a developed form of a comment Dembski made. I'm actually undecided as to whether the argument I presented is valid, and I think I may have discovered a fatal objection (I'll write a blog post on that some other time) to it. As for the reality of concepts, that's a very live topic in philosophy. Most folks hold to a correspondence theory of truth: truth is when a statement corresponds to reality. The difficulty for someone who isn't a realist with respect to abstract concepts is that it would entail that things everyone regards as true cannot actually be true. For example, is it true that 2+2=4? That's an abstraction, but most people don't want to go so far as to say it's not true. Pure conceptual argumentation can demonstrate a lot of stuff.
This seems to me to be a convoluted way of saying "God either exists or he doesn't and it's up to the atheist to show me why he doesn't." I still do not see how the mere conceiving of the possibility of a MGB makes it necessarily so. Until we know how universes are made and what laws govern reality as it exists outside of our own universe then I do not feel obliged to submit to the idea of a MGB as defined by Christianity (or Judaism or Islam).
Mmmm I disagree with premise 1. If you're going to start by saying that it's possible for god to exist then you first need to demonstrate that it is possible for him to exist. It's not a matter of "well it hasn't been proven to be impossible", because that's not how we determine what is possible. We determine what is possible by demonstrating that it is possible, not just simply asserting that it hasn't been demonstrated to be impossible.
We have, through out the series. We show no argument can challenge p1 and we can derive metaphysical possibility: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
InspiringPhilosophy reread the way you answered that. "We show no argument can challenge p1". That right there is a demonstration that you've assumed possibility without demonstrating it. Also what is your justification for claiming that something can be "metaphysically possible"? In the other video you linked me to it does exactly what I had mentioned by claiming that it is possible then claiming that there is no challenge to prove impossibility so therefore it is true. At 7:57 that quote is a perfect example of "since god hasn't been disproven, that means he's more likely to be proven". To that I'd direct you to the argument of ignorance, which is what this entire argument hinges upon.
What? You are really trying to read what you want to hear in my comment... No, I have examined the arguments and have shown them to be unconvincing. See the video... I never said God is proven because He has not been shown to be disproven. That is such a straw man. The point is we have good reasons to infer metaphysical possibility and there is no goo reason to infer the opposite: impossibility.
Your last sentence was, "...and there is no goo reason to infer the opposite: impossibility." The only point I'm making is that claim is an argument from ignorance. If you have reason to believe that he is possible then present that. But the assertion that he hasn't been proven impossible does not get you any closer to proving that he is possible. You said you have good reasons to infer his possibility, what are those reasons?
Premise 1: It is possible that God does not exist. Premise 2: If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible worlds. Premise 3: If God does not exist in some possible worlds, then God does not exist in all possible worlds. Premise 4: If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world. Premise 5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist. The argument works both ways equally well, therefore one or more of your premises is flawed.
Yup, people keep pointing this out. This is the perfect argument for the existence of God, for people who are already convinced of the existence of God.
No, the video tries to hide the point even further. It is logically possible that God is impossible ( as the video points out ) Therefore it is logically possible that Ontological Argument is 100% wrong. The argument relies on other arguments for God. As most atheists find these argument to be abject failures, the OT is left with very little. The best you can do is that all attempts to prove the God is impossible have failed. Well, all attempts to prove that God is possible have failed too. So the correct answer is... we do not know. The argument becomes, - We do not know if God is possible or not. - But if you already think that God is possible, then you'll think God is possible. As I said, the perfect argument for the existence of God, for people who are already convinced of the existence of God
And your Premise 1 comes from his Premise 1. If it's possible that god exists, it's possible that he doesn't exist. You can cut that only by using, as your first premise, that god cannot not exist. And that would be circular af
@@PaulaBean So by your admission, this is a very solid argument. We only need God to be possible (no logical contradictions) for this argument to be sound. Your objections, in absence of demonstrating a logical incoherence with the concept of God, don't at all refute the argument.
"The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thought" -- Bertrand Russell
Premise one states that ‘it is possible that God exists’, which by equivalence means ‘it is possible that God does not exist’. Premise two should merely spell out what this means in terms of PW semantics: “if it is possible that God exists, then it exists in all possible worlds or no possible worlds.” This leads to the correct conclusion that God does or does not exist. Instead, the 'argument' ignores the ‘possibly not’ half of the proposition, and states in premise two that it is possible only that God exists (in some (meaning all) possible worlds). Is the use of ‘some’ just to add salad to the soup? It must mean ‘all’. If it means ‘fewer than all’, the premise says that it is possible God exists in a way that God cannot exist. I mean, if a cat exists as a dog, what is it? Usually, hypothesised anomalies occupy the proper mental space for such non-things, where they do not encroach on our thoughts and behaviour in any significant way. So ideas of talking bears and our divine right as the Monarch of Nog do not slip unabated from imagination into our perception of reality. Possible World semantics is one way of speaking about thought processes involved in imagination and building perceptions of the real world. The MGB, it is claimed by its designer, cannot be considered in this way. It is coded to cross the barrier into existence in the moment of consideration. One can imagine polite applause when Anselmo first presented his mind-game, ‘bravo, majesty’, and sly smiles all round. When the MGB is proposed to you, you’re faced with a choice; do you hit ‘ok’ or spam it on the spot? Actually, that choice is usually obscured to increase the hit count. But the MOA cannot reliably process this state of affairs at the _realistic_ starting situation, since at this point, MGB exists in some, but fewer than all, possible worlds. In other words, it exists hypothetically, which violates the definition of the MGB. MGB is a hypnotic entity, not a logical one. There’s no logical way to argue it into existence from a position of it possibly not existing; to think it is for it to exist. Premise one means to say ‘God exists yay Praise him Amen. ” Instead, the author presents a salad in the hope of camouflaging the sins.
+SimsulatedId You are trying to separate logical truth and hypothetical, which is like splitting hairs. The argument is based off of what is logical and what deductively follows. It is not somehow divorced from logic. The entity has been shown to be logical and thus the argument follows.
+InspiringPhilosophy “The argument is based off of what is logical,” you say. What it is that 'is logical', IP? What is the ‘logical truth’ you refer to? What is it in my argument that is ‘hypothetical’? The entity is logical, I agree. But not the argument. The version of the MOA you present in the video is shown to be fallacious in more ways than one, by my humble self in the post above and by numerous others. Specifically, and at least, your second premise excludes the possibility that God does not exist, which is implied in premise one. How does this possibility get ruled out between premises one and two? If ‘possible’ in premise one is in the sense of ‘possible because actual’, then you should make that clear. You could open with “It is impossible that God does not exist” and fly from there.
Your linked videos talk about a ton of stuff that do not relate to our discussion. If I'm not undertanding something, please be specific. If it is possible for God to exist and possible for God not to exist, then clearly you cannot conclude that God does exist without possibility that it doesn’t; that would violate your opening premise. Meanwhile, if it is impossible for God not to exist, which , I believe, is Anselmo’s case, then say so in premise one. The real problem, as I pointed out, is that the MGB cannot really be mentioned without it existing. I’ve never truly discussed it, I assure you. For the sake of argument I accept it is logically coherent, but really, it is not possible to argue about its existence; to think it is for it to exist. You may discuss whose lawn to mow or first-born to sacrifice in its name, but there is no possibility for it not to exist since you either know about it and it does or you don’t and you’re not talking about it. For this reason, ‘it is possible that an MGB does or does not exist’ is simply not true. It is only possible for it to exist. Period. You say it, you believe it. Ner!
SimsulatedId I did deal with that in those videos and pointed out saying it is possible a MGB does not exist is equivalent to saying one is impossible, and you cannot derive impossibility from possibility alone. The only way a MGB cannot exist is to be impossible, so there a way a MGB can not exist.
Julio Jerez is exactly correct: premise 1 is not established. It is an unsubstantiated assertion. You have to start by defining the god you are claiming is possible. There are many thousands of different descriptions of god(s). Until you have defined the god we are discussing, you cannot even begin to explore weather or not that god might be possible. The ontological argument fails on this point alone.
***** No. I am quite familiar with the argument. It fails on all points. No need to go beyond premise 1 as it fails right there. Neither you, nor anyone else can refute the points I've made. If you believe you can, then spell it out here, now. 1) Define your god. 2) Explain, do not simply assert how that god is possible.
biggbrattz facepalm* I did define God as a MGB. And I showed God is possible in "Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2)". Just saying your points are not refuted is not an argument, since i did in my videos.
Great explanation! As a Muslim, I really appreciate a lot of work that Christian's like yourself and the greats in the past have done. I really wish Muslims and Christians can move past their hate and concentrate on real problems
Never said we should be one religion. That's missing the point. We need to think of the greater context though: theism, monotheism specifically, is under attack
Agreed, though it was never actually clear to me that there was any hate, only what each side believed was best. For the most part when we hear about the crusades, particularly that of King Richard and Saladin, we're always led to assume this deep, ingrained blood feud where one is sworn to kill the other. The reality of course is that the relationship between these two men was that of profound fondness, respect and friendship. They just had a job to do that's all. Saladin, when responding to a letter that he received from Richard, wrote: _"If any man were to succeed in taking Jerusalem from me, I pray it will be you"_ . Saladin also sent Richard one of his own medics on the battlefield when Richard was cut from his horse. Why is this stuff not taught I wonder??
No, it doesn't work like that. Existence is not a property and the A doesn't try to use it, so this is a straw man argument. The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)
Try to imagine the greatest possible being. Now imagine a square circle. Now imagine the greatest possible integer. You have imagined all three incorrectly. You cannot imagine something that does not exist. 1. There is an infinite series of increasingly better possible worlds. 2. Whatever world God actually creates, he would have created a better one. 3. If God could have created a better world then he could have been morally better. 4. If God could have been morally better then he is not perfect and not worthy of worship. 5. Therefore God is not perfect and not worthy of worship. 1. Degree of goodness of creator reflected in degree of goodness of creation. 2. Unsurpassably good creator requires unsurpassably good creation. According to the Ontological Argument, If you concede that this world is not the best, God is not the best. God could have done better so he is not perfect. 1. Mere existence is not efficient to describe God. 2. Our only descriptions of God are human. 3. Human descriptions of the divine are unacceptable. 4. God does not exist. Your arguments are not logically coherent. The example you give at 3:01 is just a circle in a square.
6:52 "The only way for skeptics to debunk this argument is to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist." The video claims that God is a maximally great being, and therefore has all qualities that are better to have, and therefore is 'necessary' because that is greater than 'contingent,' and necessary = exists. 1. A being that is not dependent on evil is better than a being that is dependent on evil. 2. God is dependent on evil. 3. God can not be maximally great. God, in fact, belongs in the "impossible" category because it is impossible for a being to be "wholly good" and "partly evil." This is as impossible as a square circle. To say that evil is necessary entails two beliefs: 1. The existence of free-willed beings is necessary to the existence of God. And 2. Evil is necessary to the existence of free-willed beings. If either of these are untrue then God subjected sentient beings to evil and suffering unnecessarily. And it should be universally understood that to unnecessarily cause suffering and evil is per se an evil act. And for a being to commit an evil act it must be partially evil. It should also be understood that if a being's existence is dependent on the existence of evil then it is partially evil. But we know that this is logically impossible. So it should be clear that the existence of evil proves beyond any doubt that the existence of any maximally great being is an impossibility. It would either be dependent on evil (having a less-than-maximal quality), or it would be a logical impossibility (100% good and 13% evil, impossible, like a square circle.) Impossibility of MGB shown, argument debunked, thank you, and good night.
***** Then explain why God had to create evil? There's no way out of this for you. Either God is dependent on evil or he created it unnecessarily. Checkmate.
cruelsuit1 That is a false dichotomy because the other option is privatio boni. And I already pointed this out: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 1)
In every moment, it is possible that such a maximally great being will manifest his/her/its greatness in the next moment, and that such a being would be greater than one who didn't, yet such a being that has been proven in the previous moment, using the ontological argument, is found to be disproven in the next. Since a maximally great being that persists through time is greater than one that doesn't, it cannot be said that the god that existed in the previous moment no longer exists in this moment. So we are left with a continuum of Gods that have been simultaneously proven and disproven, which violates the axiom of noncontradiction. Of course, the other option is that a maximally great being could or would not, in fact, manifest himself to me, but that would mean that there would be a place in time, space, and perception where his greatness does not exist, and thus such a god gets beat out by another possible being who does in the "greatest possible" hierarchy. Bottom line, this isn't remotely how the world actually works. I find it more likely that some problem with logic or language or intuitive confusion is producing these results.
michaelsmith2911 If one exists outside of time then He would actualize all moments of time at once and would have activity in time in that sense, just from His perspective it would not be progressing through time, but from our perspective He would be in all time and all moments.
+InspiringPhilosophy That doesn't refute my first point OR my second. A maximally great being does manifest himself in the future, also progresses through time, and/or actualizes it. Except that he doesn't.
michaelsmith2911 That doesn't make any sense. God is manifested in all time. He doesn't need to progress through it. He actualizes past present and future at once.
Existence is not a property, necessity is. Necessity doesn't mean existence, which is why just defining God as necessary doesn't mean He exists. He has to be possible for the argument to work. See my video, "Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (part 1). You cannot define a physical thing as MG.
This argument is essentially saying “we’ve imagined something so great that it has to exist.” How is your imagination a “possible world?” It seems like there is a gap between conceivable and possible and I don’t see how this argument builds that bridge. In other words, this looks like an equivocation fallacy to me, where “possible” means “possible to imagine” in one moment and “actually possible” in the next moment. Am I missing something here?
I will address Anselm's Ontological argument and Godel's Ontological argument. Using the modal axioms below Anselm's ontological argument can be reduced to proving ◇p --> □p. I.E; If you accept the model axioms below, then ◇p --> □p would be a theorem. For a modal logic we need to add the connectives "necessary that" and "possibly that" in addition to the connectives in a predicate logic.
Let □ represent "necessary that" and ◇ represent "possibly that". Using a predicate logic we can easily prove the "substitution rule" which states: p V q q --> r -------- theterfore, p V r. Using a truth table(which can be used in a predicate logic) you can show that (~p --> q) V (p V q) is a tautology. I.E; the two statements are equivalent. Call this tautology A: (~p --> q) (p V q). Proof: (1) p V q Given (2) q --> r Given (3) ~p --> q A (1) (4) ~p --> r Chain Rule (3) and (2) (5) p V r A (4) QED. Becker's Postulates: (1) □p --> □□p (2) ◇p --> □◇p Axiom 1: ◇p Axiom 2: p --> □p modal modus ponens: □(p --> q) --> (□p --> □q) modal modus tollens: (p --> q) --> (□~q --> □~p) (*) ~□p --> ◇~p (**) ◇p --> ~□~p necessitation postulate: □p Law of excluded middle: □p V ◇~p To prove : ◇p --> □p (1) ◇p Axiom 1 (2) p --> □p Axiom 2 (3) ◇~p --> □◇~p Becker's postulate 2 (4) □p V ◇~p Law of excluded middle (5) □p V □◇~p Substitution rule (3,4) (6) ~□p --> ~p law of contrapositive (2) (7) ◇~p --> ~p by * (6) (8) □(◇~p --> ~p) necessitation postulate (7) (9) □◇~p --> □~p modal modus ponens (9) (10) □p V □~p substitution (5,9) (11) ◇p --> ~□~p by ** (12) ~□~p modus ponens (11,1) (13) □p Law of detachment (10,12) The argument is clearly a valid argument, whether it's a sound valid argument I leave to others to debate on the Axioms above. Now we have Anselm's argument by letting p - God exists. Godel's Ontological Argument is worth looking in to. An explanation of Godel's ontological proof. Note: Using Godel's ontological argument we will prove that ◇(∃x)Gx and from this we will prove □(∃x)Gx. Pos(F) states property F is positive. Axiom 1 : Pos(F) --> □Pos(F) Axiom 2: Pos(F) --> ~Pos(~F) It's clear that Axiom 2 states if F is a positive property, then it's negation is not positive. Axiom 3: Pos(F) --> [(F --> H) --> Pos(H)] Axiom 3 just states that positive properties imply other positive properties. def: A property F is said to be consistent if ◇(∃x)Fx is true and if property F is inconsistent then F --> ~F. Theorem 1: Pos(F) --> ◇(∃x)Fx Proof: Let Pos(F) be true and suppose F is inconsistent, then F --> ~F and by Axiom 3 Pos(F) --> [(F --> ~F) --> Pos(~F)] --> Pos(~F) is true --> ~Pos(~F) is false which contradicts Axiom 2. Therefore, the assumption is false and the assertion Pos(F) --> ◇(∃x)Fx is true. Here we define what it means to be Godlike. Let Gx stand for x is Godlike. def 1: Gx = df(F)[□Fx Pos(F)] is a tautology. I.E; The two statements are equivalent. This states that every essential property of a godlike individual x is a positive property and every positive property of x is an essential property. Note: This definition does not imply that a godlike individual has all positive properties. It states that a godlike individual has those positive properties which are essential properties. F ess x reads "F is an essence of x." Next we define what it means for a property F to be a essence of an individual x. def 2: F ess x = df(H)[□Hx (F --> H)] is a tautology. Next we define what it means for an individual x to exist necessarily. Let NE(x) read "x necessarily exists". def 3: NE(x) = df(F)[F ess x --> □(∃y)Fy]. Axiom 4: Pos(G). Axiom 5: Pos(NE). Corollary 1 : ◇(∃x)Gx Proof: By Axiom 4 Pos(G) and by Theorem 1 Pos(G) --> ◇(∃x)Gx and by modal ponens --> ◇(∃x)Gx. QED. Theorem 2: Gx --> G Ess x. Proof: Assume Gx is true and let □Hx. To show: □y(Gy --> Hy) By (def 1 and Axiom 1) □Hx --> Pos(H) --> □Pos(H). Referring to the Note above by def 1 we have: □[Pos(H) --> (y)(Gy --> Hy)] and by modul modus ponens □Pos(H) --> □(y)(Gy --> Hy). Now let Gx be true and G --> H. Show □H. By (Axiom 4) Pos(G) and by (Axiom 3) and (def 1) we have : Pos(G) --> [G --> H) --> Pos(H)] --> □H. Therefore Gx --> G Ess x. Prove: □(∃x)Gx. Prior to proving the above statement we need two theorems in modal logic. Theorem A* : □(p --> q) --> [◇p --> ◇q]. Theorem A** : ◇□p --> □p. Proof of □(∃x)Gx. If Gx where true, then by (def 1) □Pos(G) and by (Axiom 4) Pos(NE) --> NE(x) is true and by (Theorem 2) G ess x is true --> [(∃x)Gx --> □(∃x)Gx]. By necessitation axiom above □[(∃y)Fy --> □(∃y)Fy] and Theorem A* --> ◇(∃x)Gx --> ◇□(∃x)Gx and by Corollary 1 ◇(∃x)Gx which by A** --> □(∃x)Gx. QED Using an ordinary MacBook computer, Godel's proof was shown to be correct, at least on a mathematical level, using a higher modal logic. I find it amazing that Godel's argument can be proven automatically in a few seconds or even less on a standard notebook. The equations all add up. If there are other things that use similar logic it may be possible to develop computer systems to check each single step of a proof to make certain they are correct. Note: Godel axiomatized the notion of a "positive property and thereby assumes we can single out positive properties from the set of all properties. He defines a positive property rather vaguely: Positive means "positive in the moral aesthetic sense" (independently of the accidental structure of the world).
If one is to accept the premise that God's existence is necessary, wouldn't logically proving otherwise be impossible? Whats the point of using logic here if the definitions already conclude the question being asked i.e. does God exist? You're using definitions that already assert God"s existence and definitions can't prove anything in and of themselves. The logic and premises indeed don't add up, but defining God as necessary neither _makes it so_ nor make the logic of the argument sound. It's like fixing the premise "The Harry Potter franchise stars Donald Trump" with the assertion "Harry Potter is a franchise that has to star Donald Trump" AND THEN proceeding to make an argument, however illogical, that Donald Trump was in Harry Potter. The definition/assertion plugged into the premise concludes the argument being made regardless of sound logic.
No one defined a MGB as already existing. A MGB would include necessity. Meaning one is possible or impossible. If possible the argument simply follows.
Because you can be defined as necessary and still be impossible. I could define a tree as necessary, but such a concept would be impossible, since physical things cannot be necessary.
Hold on let's back up here. Didn't you say in the video that God is a necessary entity _in addition to_ defining a necessary entity as "something that cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world"? My issue isn't in these assertions themselves (we are free define things however we want regardless of what facts are known or yet to be discovered) but rather when you use this *"necessary to all possible worlds" entity in the context of a logically argument to prove it's existence.* The definitions used _in the context of the argument_ already have the answer regardless of the premises. This makes the argument redundant and akin to begging the question.
It is not true that squares exist in "any possible world". If you define a square as a polygon with 4 equal length sides which meet at right angles, then one need no further than hyperbolic geometry, where the angles of all quadrilaterals add up to less than 360 degrees, to find a geometry where squares don't exist. If you instead define a square to be a closed polygon where the sides meet at right angles, then hyperbolic geometry has squares with 3 sides, but none with 4 sides. In fact, squares don't even really exist in our would, given that space everywhere is curved by matter. In general concepts like squares and circles and numbers don't exist in any physical way. You can't show me the number 2. It is an abstract idea, with different properties depending on the mathematical system being discussed. For instance in modulus 4 arithmetic we have 2+2+2=1 instead of 2+2+2=6. So your video really fails to give an example of any physically existing "Necessary Entities".
At the end of the day there are two types of beliefs that are contradictory. The new news maybe is: if you believe God is possible, then it follows, you must believe God exists (I'll take that on faith for the logic cited). It also seems that if you are an atheist (with principles), you must necessarily believe something like this is valid: 1) It is possible that it is impossible for God to exist. 2) If it is possible that it is impossible for God to exist, then it is possible God doesn't exist in any possible world. 3) If it is possible God doesn't exist in any possible world, then it is possible atheism is true [skipped some steps, but they're obvious]. It doesn't seem like much has changed really. Neither side can prove their premise 1), so until further notice, I'm taking these proofs to say more about the logical "trajectory" of our beliefs, given something specific is true, rather than anything definitive about God.
@@isidoreaerys8745 "Ah yes let me just observe and experiment on this TIMELESS and SPACELESS being that is outside the bounds science was meant to work on."
You do present the concept in a straight-forward manner that makes it easier to understand. Maybe I'm still missing something, but the argument still seems to boil down to defining God into existence. You talk about a maximally great being that is necessary, but it seems the argument poses that he is necessary only because if he were not he wouldn't be maximally great. Is God maximally great? Well, no: he lied to Adam about the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit, he falls to fits of rage on a frequent basis, and he makes decisions that do not seem to result in the ultimate desired outcome (flooding the earth to eliminate wickedness, for instance). All of this seems to be ignored in favor of pointing and claiming even louder, "But he's maximally great AND necessary!" As far as I understand it, the only thing in reality that is necessary is the state of existence. So if god exists, he only does so by the grace of existence itself. And existence does not require God in order to operate. So God isn't necessary, he isn't maximally great - the only thing you've got left is that he might exist. I never took any courses in philosophy or formal logic, so maybe there's some underpinning of process that I've missed here. But the entire argument seems to be built on making the premises so difficult to comprehend "properly" that you can sneak in the conclusion that God exists because you've defined it that way.
Well that is the definition and a definition doesn't entail actual existence alone, a necessary being must be logically coherent and metaphysically possible. God did not lie to Adam, Clement of Alexandria tells us the fruit caused spiritual death, and anger is not a sin. It is good to be angry with evil. Also, Hebrew scholars will tell us ancient Jews considered God equal to existence, God is existence and we just participate in that: www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/433240/jewish/God.htm
***** Hmmm... "God did not lie to Adam." So God has a communication problem is what you're saying? It doesn't say he told Adam that he would die a spiritual death, he told him he would die, and he would die "that same day." Personally, I don't buy the myth as an actual event, but if you're going to stick to the letter of the word, then please stop making excuses. God led Adam to believe something that was not true. He was being deceitful. (It wouldn't be the last time.) "anger is not a sin" You're right. Anger is not a sin. It is a flaw. And from your video, a maximally great being is free of flaws. "ancient Jews considered God equal to existence." Well, they were wrong then, weren't they. These things are not synonymous. So it really doesn't matter what the ancient Jews thought; we know better. Now: "a necessary being must be logically coherent and metaphysically possible." Is a god that behaves as he is presented in the Bible logically coherent? Is a god that hides his true existence from mere mortals logically coherent? Is a god that is maximally great, yet leaves no trace of evidence in his wake logically coherent? And what does "metaphysically possible" mean? Beyond the physical. Which is what exactly? This is where the idea starts detaching from reality. The ontological argument posits that God exists merely because you think he does. But then it inserts qualifiers and logic that seems too deep to superficially dismiss. I'd like to think I comprehend things fairly well enough. And I have no problem in pondering deeply, but you abandon real world aspects in this argument and try to embed a contradictory notion of existence beyond existence. If it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, and it acts like a duck, it's probably a duck. But if it looks nothing like a duck, sounds nothing like a duck, and acts nothing like a duck, where do you get off telling me it's a metaphysical duck? The ontological argument seems to be an excuse to continue to believe in something that you never believed in because of the ontological argument in the first place. I say that because I'm sure this is not the argument that brought you to God. If I'm wrong, do tell; I'd really like to know what's so compelling about this argument. As it stands, I do not see merit in it at all.
Ironoclasty The Bible uses death for spiritual death and physical death interchangeably (Ezekiel 18:20; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13). We need to read context to know which one. "Anger is not a sin. It is a flaw." - No it is not... It is not wrong or a flaw if it is directed properly. "Well, they were wrong then, weren't they. These things are not synonymous." - If you are going to be ad hoc, then it is pointless to reason with you. We define God differently than you... " Is a god that behaves as he is presented in the Bible logically coherent?" - Sigh* ua-cam.com/video/1C3q3Zr_R8E/v-deo.html "And what does "metaphysically possible" mean? " - ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html "The ontological argument posits that God exists merely because you think he does." - Obviously not, if we have to argue from metaphysical possibility...
First of all, thanks for the links (the puns were awesome :) ). Second, the exasperation you showed in your last post makes it clear that you are familiar with the objections that I have posed, so much so that you have embedded responses within your previous works. Considering the nature of the material, that's probably the best method of responding. Lastly, it's also clear that you and I are speaking in different circles. I am not a formally trained student of logical debate and philosophy, as I have stated. So it is apparent that neither of us are speaking directly to one another on these points. With that in mind: "We need to read context to know which one." The Genesis account, as I noted earlier, is a gnostic parable as far as I'm concerned. As such, there is no proper context as an actual event, so this is not a point worth pursuing. "It is not wrong or a flaw if it is directed properly." For a divine being of maximal greatness, anger most certainly is a flaw. 1) Supposedly, God chose to create this universe in the way that he did as opposed to any other kind of universe he could have created. 2) In doing so, he knew what he was getting into, having omniscience. 3) As this is what he picked, he's got no reason to complain, be upset, or exhibit anger unless his character has some deficiency (like, say, loving the smell of burning flesh, for instance). "If you are going to be ad hoc, then it is pointless to reason with you. We define God differently than you..." Ad hoc? So, if I reasonably point out that those two words: God and Existence, do not mean the same thing, I'm wrong? I have committed an Ad Hoc fallacy by stating that the words are not interchangeable? Are you frickin kidding me? Or have I taken that out of context as well? Are you saying that, not only do you define God to exist, but you also define God to be existence? And you can't reason with ME?How vapidly offensive of you. If you cannot reason with me, it is not because I am unreasonable. The hour-long video about God being perceived as a moral monster had all of a couple of seconds relating to my position and did not address my concern (God's behavior, not justifications for God being harsh). The other only presented the idea that metaphysical possibility presents an additional qualifier that cannot itself be quantified (since you can also redefine "meta-physicality" as you see fit), giving the argument the perception of validity. To sum up your last post, as I see it: I'm "wrong" because you've defined me to be wrong; the same way you defined God to exist (oh, and God AS existence, also, yes). Apparently you do indeed define God differently than I do. Well, now I see that you are absolutely correct. God does exist! (At least, there appear to be no alternative answers left by your definitions.) Well done.
Ironoclasty "The Genesis account, as I noted earlier, is a gnostic parable as far as I'm concerned. " - That doesn't make any sense because the Genesis account was written thousands of years before gnostics appeared. It is jewish poetry. "As this is what he picked, he's got no reason to complain, be upset, or exhibit anger unless his character has some deficiency" - He has every right to be angry at sin, by your logic, filmmakers could not write any movies with an antagonist who is defeated by the good. Allowing for evil, doesn't mean God likes it and doesn't want to see it defeated. "God and Existence, do not mean the same thing, I'm wrong?" - Again, all you have done is defined them differently therefore everyone has to accept your terms, That is not how this works... Your opponent has a right to have a different belief and definition... "God's behavior, not justifications for God being harsh" - Again, God has a right to be angry with sin. " (since you can also redefine "meta-physicality" as you see fit), giving the argument the perception of validity." - No, that comes from Sual Kripke... Metaphysical possibility is based off a posteriori reasoning.
I have heard the argument as well as follows from James Cutsinger: 1 - God is "That-Than-Which-Nothing-Greater-Can-Be-Thought". 2 - That-Than-Which-Nothing-Greater-Can-Be-Thought can be thought. 3 - That which can be thought exists in the mind. 4 - That which exists in the mind either exists in the mind alone, or also exists in reality. 5 - To exist in reality is greater than to exist in the mind alone. 6 - That-Than-Which-Nothing-Greater-Can-Be-Thought cannot exist in the mind alone. 7 - That-Than-Which-Nothing-Greater-Can-Be-Thought must exist in reality. 8 - Therefore God must exist.
The greatest evidence of God is every living thing. No unguided natural thing can ever make any directed part of any living thing so your Maker is supernatural. It's observable that you exit. It's observable that you were made by a preexisting written set of directives that no material thing is able to significantly sequence so you have a supernatural Maker that also made programmable matter and programmed matter to work inside of you. Your diminishing perfection proves two things. It proves there is perfection and that you are losing it. No unguided physical thing is able to achieve any level of perfection. We happen to be falling from perfection all the time in every way physically speaking. You can't fall from a level of perfection that did not previously exist and no physical thing is ever able to attain any level of perfection.
How did you determine what was a Great Making Property and what was a Lesser Making Property? How did you determine that Existence is greater than Nonexistence? What if we got it backwards and Nonexistence is greater than Existence? Would that mean that a maximally great being necessarily doesn't exist in every possible world?
There's no such thing as a "Maximally Great Being" just like there's no such thing as a "Maximally Great Integer." Regardless of how "Great" you conceive your being to be I can conceive of one that can beat your being up or is prettier or smarter or wittier.. There's no such thing as "Absolute Truth" either. Truth is an attribute we assign to a premise. A premise can be "true" or "false." Saying "Absolute Truth" is like saying "Absolute Shortness." Why do shape definitions have to exist and why do numbers have to exist? These things only exist because of human consciousness. They are a method of categorization. They would not be necessary in a world without consciousness. Besides, saying that being Necessary is better than being Contingent is essentially the same thing as saying Existence is better than Non-existence which is why the original Ontological Argument failed. The argument boils down to "It's possible that God exists therefore God exists" which is a non-sequitur. By the way, who says it's possible that God exists? It depends upon your definition of God. If your definition includes that God is both a square and a circle then that God is impossible and exists in no possible worlds.
Valicroix "here's no such thing as a "Maximally Great Being" just like there's no such thing as a "Maximally Great Integer." Regardless of how "Great" you conceive your being to be I can conceive of one that can beat your being up or is prettier or smarter or wittier.." -Then the bing to conceive is the MGB. It is not about degrees of MGGB, but one who is above all else. Just saying you can think of another doesn't affect the argument, because you just posit a MGB. "There's no such thing as "Absolute Truth" either." - Also, is it absolutely true there is no absolute truth? "Why do shape definitions have to exist and why do numbers have to exist? These things only exist because of human consciousness. They are a method of categorization. " - So before any human existed the number 2 did not exist? Is that really what you are saying? Did the law of physics not apply? You're confusing it's epistemic status with its ontologically status. "Besides, saying that being Necessary is better than being Contingent is essentially the same thing as saying Existence is better than Non-existence which is why the original Ontological Argument failed." - No, necessity and contingency are not defined as existence and non-existence. so trying to equate them doesn't work. This objection doesn't make sense because words are not defined as you please "By the way, who says it's possible that God exists? It depends upon your definition of God. " See: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html I defined a MGB in this video. Just saying other definition are incoherent is meaningless here. why would you eve bring that up?
***** You can't just "posit" something into existence. That's the whole problem with this argument. You're essentially trying to define something into being and reality doesn't work that way. You especially cannot "posit" something that is impossible and a MGB is impossible. I might as well posit a Golden Unicorn as a Maximally Great Animal (MGA) and then follow your exact line of reasoning to demonstrate that a Golden Unicorn exists. Any difference you can try to claim between your MGB and my MGA would be special pleading. "So before any human existed the number 2 did not exist?" True statement. The number 2 is a mathematical construct that represents a quantity in our reality. Quantities and the "Laws of Physics" are not necessarily the same in all "possible" worlds. Possible covers a lot of ground. We live in a reality where Imaginary Numbers exist so why can't there be a reality where Real Numbers do not exist? "Also, is it absolutely true there is no absolute truth?" No, it is TRUE that there is no absolute truth or, more accurately, the term "absolute truth" makes no sense. True or False is an attribute assigned to a proposition just like new or old. What is "absolute new?" I bring the "who says it's possible that God exists" up because that's the 1st Premise in your simplified version of the argument.
Valicroix "You're essentially trying to define something into being and reality doesn't work that way." - No, because no one saying God exists from the definition of a MGB alone, but one has to demonstrate metaphysical possibility. So it is not defining something into existence, since metaphysical possibility must be demonstrated. " I might as well posit a Golden Unicorn as a Maximally Great Animal" - I address that in this video, it is not as easy as you think: ua-cam.com/video/ixqsZP7QP_o/v-deo.html "The number 2 is a mathematical construct that represents a quantity in our reality." - no, the term is. The semantics did not exist, but what the term represented was true. Again, this is confusing there epistemic status or 2 and the ontological status. "Possible covers a lot of ground. We live in a reality where Imaginary Numbers exist so why can't there be a reality where Real Numbers do not exist?" - Because it is impossible. As philosopher Thomas Nagel says, "..in skepticism about logic, we can never reach a point at which we have two possibilities with which all the "evidence" is compatible and between which it is therefore impossible to choose. The forms of thought that must be used in any attempt to set up such an alternative force themselves to the top of the heap. I cannot think, for example, that i would be in an epistemically identical situation if 2+2 equaled 5 but my brains were being scrambled-because I cannot conceive of 2 +2 being equal to 5. The epistemological skeptic relies on reason to get us to a neutral point above the level of thoughts that are the object of skepticism. The logical skeptic can offer no such external platform." "No, it is TRUE that there is no absolute truth or, more accurately, the term "absolute truth" makes no sense." - You have refuted yourself. Then there is absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. You can't have it both ways. Either there is absolute truth, or you cannot say there is no truth, which is an absolute claim. As Nagel says, "Claims to the effect that a type of judgement expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent: They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgements which places them in an unconditional context. The judgement of relativity or conditionally cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself. To put it schematically, the claim "Everything is subjective" must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim, including the claim that it is objectively false."
***** I never said there is no truth. I said in order to determine truth you must state a proposition. True or false is conditional based upon the proposition and circumstances. For instance, is the expression 1+1=2 true? The answer is that it's conditional based upon the base number system that you're using. Sometimes 1+1=10. Nagel is talking about the ACTUAL WORLD which is by definition singular in nature. Model Logic operates with a set of possible worlds and the "evidence" can be different in different worlds which is why not everything is true in all possible worlds. For instance, there are non-Euclidean geometries which are just as sound and consistent as Euclidean geometry but in which the sum of the angles of a triangle are less than 180 degrees and greater than 180 degrees respectively. So different possible worlds may have different geometries. If one posits an infinite number of possible worlds then all things may be possible that are not logical contradictions. To say "no real numbers exist" is not a logical contradiction. It's false in our world but it might be true in some other world. Who said anything about "everything is subjective?" I watched your video on Maximally Great Beings. How is your idea of a Maximally Great Being different from a Maximally Great Animal, a Maximally Great Insect or a Maximally Great Muffin? The problem is making the leap from a system of mathematics into the actual world. You cannot articulate a Maximally Great Anything because someone can always come up something that is Greater. If you simply assume that this is not an infinite progression but ends at some unidentified entity that is a Maximally Great Something (Being, Animal, Insect, Muffin etc.) then your entire argument reduces to "Assume God Exists therefore God exists." Let's consider something from your MGB Video. Plantinga actually states that "A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W." Yet you state that omnipotent does not mean the ability to do everything but simply means "almighty in power." Well, regardless of how "almighty in power" you come up with I can come up with a being equal in all other ways but mightier because he can beat your guy up. So one cannot define a being that has "maximal excellence" since "maximal" by definition means the highest or greatest possible. Even Plantinga acknowledges that a rational person could reject his premise that there is a being with Maximal Greatness. In "The Nature of Necessity" he said “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion." But "rational to accept" is a long, long way from proven to be true. You cannot DEFINE something into existence. You cannot assume that's it's possible for something to exist and then make the leap into it exists in reality. In order to do that you need empirical evidence to back that claim up.
Valicroix "I never said there is no truth." - Yes you did, "There's no such thing as "Absolute Truth" either. " "The answer is that it's conditional based upon the base number system that you're using. Sometimes 1+1=10." - Therefore is it built of facts, not subjective opinions. It is impossible for you to argue and not state absolutes. "Nagel is talking about the ACTUAL WORLD which is by definition singular in nature. " - No, he is not, because I read his book. He is pointing out relativism and subjectivism is incoherent. Logic is true in all possible worlds, and cannot be escaped. "To say "no real numbers exist" is not a logical contradiction. It's false in our world but it might be true in some other world." - Again, Nagel challenges that by asking you to convince of a world where 2+2 doesn't 5. It is impossible because logic is universally binding. "I watched your video on Maximally Great Beings. How is your idea of a Maximally Great Being different from a Maximally Great Animal, a Maximally Great Insect or a Maximally Great Muffin?" - I doubt you watched it, because I pointed out physical things cannot be MG. "You cannot articulate a Maximally Great Anything because someone can always come up something that is Greater. " - no, because that is like saying there is a 1st place higher than actual 1st place. It is incoherent and meaningless. Just saying you posit a greater being, makes that the MGB. The OA doesn't change since it doesn't specific a specific, just a MGB. "But "rational to accept" is a long, long way from proven to be true." - Yeah... No one ever claimed we were proving God exists. I eve go over this quote in this video: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html Nothing Plantinga says I disagree with. Plus, I did not assume a MGB is possible. In that video i point out we have demonstrated metaphysical possibility.
Atheist Philosopher "The maximal excellence attributes are empty and have no cognitive meaning. An MGB (god) cannot eat dirt or ride a bicycle. An MGB cannot know who, what, when or where someone is eating dirt or riding a bike." I find these statements incoherent. Why could an MGB not ride a bike or know when someone is? Surely, He can take any form He wishes. "MGB cannot have moral perfections when there is killings by divine commands." God may have morally sufficient reasons for issuing these commands. God has a higher priority than simply preserving life. Perhaps His actions were to achieve an overarching goal (i.e. salvation of humanity).
+James Cobau The simple answer is no. Someone who has the world record for eating the most dirt is a dummy. Substitute the word 'god' with 'human' and then get two humans to have a dirt eating contest to see who is greater. The truly greater of the two would offer to let the other go first.
@@joaquinbocosta An omnipotent being would be able to achieve ANY "higher goal" without suffering, otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent... So, I can logically conclude: Since there is suffering in the world, a maximally great, _benevolent _*_and_*_ omnipotent_ being cannot exist.
@@lukidurer28 That depends on how you define suffering, and on wether all possible examples of said suffering truly are bad. As an example, pain, in and of itself, is not bad, as without a sense of pain we would accidentally injure or kill ourselves regularly. You would drink boiling water (say, for tea), not knowing it was killing you until you were already dead, or had lost your voice.
@@Menzobarrenza The problem with this is that God is still supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or at least defined that way in this argument. So he is the ultimate rulemaker of everything. That being said, if god wanted so, people could also learn to avoide things that are bad for themselves without suffering pain. You can't say that would "go against our nature" because our nature is supposed to be set exactly by God. Anything that implies pain for any reason could be avoidable if there was an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
Proof that God does not exist: 1. if it is possible that God exists, then he certainly does exist - as proven by Alvin Plantinga 2. it is possible that God does not exist 3. therefore, because of clause 1 above, it is not possible that God exists Wherever mentioned, "God" may be interchanged with "Maximally Great Being".
This is a terrible video, that has already been refuted. It is full of logical fallacies, and the maker is lying to you. The only reason you like it is because it suits your preexisting indoctrination. This video is basically just I can imagine a farting unicorn that is necessary to exist, therefor it does exist...
@@jonneexplorer Then you didn’t watch the video because the joke you were making does it make any sense and we’re not even fit the video also who was refuted it it’s still a very talked about Debate. Also he uses the unicorn as a joke so either you do not understand the video or you simply do not watch it. I myself acknowledge that this is not a good argument for God‘s existence but the call bad or a fallacy or terrible video it’s just an absolute lie.
@@jonneexplorer you do understand that saying that the necessary being is an unicorn doesn't actually prove the argument is wrong. You're just picturing the being in a bad way and saying "haha looks bad". That's not a counter argument.
Alvin Plantinga is nothing more than a cultural imperialist bigot. All your ancestors who were forced to convert to this INANE cult by knife/gun point would be ashamed to see you reproducing this tribalistic Ugga bugga Hebrew nonsense.
This is not Gödel's argument, but based on Plantinga's argument which uses necessity. So this is a bait and switch. Physical beings cannot be necessary as I point out in my other video, they are contingent on contingent substances like matter.
Wow, way to butcher centuries of philosophy on metaphysics. Plus, you need to define what you mean by "objective". The existence of God is not a subjective claim, yes.
I'm confused. This makes perfect sense. It's simplified so I know some of the parts are being left out that would make it harder to understand but it lines up perfectly in my head. Everyone is saying it's confusing so I don't know if I understand it truly or I'm completely off base.
I find that the modal ontological argument is a bit like a riddle. When you don't know the answer to a riddle it can seem very hard to figure it out, bit when you are told the answer, it becomes almost obvious and you wonder how you ever missed it. Likewise, the modal ontological argument is only confusing when you don't understand it, but when you do come to understand it, it becomes almost obvious and you wonder how you ever missed it. This is probably why other people are saying it is confusing and hard to understand whilst you think it is straightforward and obvious.
I agree. I still don’t know if it’s the most convincing because there’s some other very convincing ones, but this one’s definitely my favorite now either way.
@@cosmicnomad8575 I think the best way to view the modal ontological argument isn't to look at it as a stand alone argument that is used in isolation, but rather, to look at it as an "over arching" argument. That is to say, it sets the landscape in which the whole discussion of God's existence takes place. So you can, for example, present a bunch of different arguments for God's existence, and then afterwards you can present the modal ontological argument and show that if it is even possible that God exists, then it follows that God exists. Thus, the cumulative weight of all of the arguments for God's existence that you have presented so far in your conversation only need to show that God's existence is possible.
0:45 "impossible to refute", I am sure that for an argument to be valid it must be able to be false. 4:20 "maximally great being... great making properties" all of these are do not add up to anything in reality. I can not give one love, for one wisdom. I can not give one power, for one love. So if I may ask what is your definition of a maximally great being? It seems strange because we don't have anything else that is maximally great.
No.. Most arguments are valid, the question is if they are sound. The term maximal greatness and GMP are just titles for properties that are ontologically beneficial in all possible worlds.
Ark Builder Well, basically what I said in the video: entailing all GMP (which are properties that are ontologically beneficial in all possible worlds).
Sorry buddy, but just because you won't accept how ridiculously bad the argument is, doesn't mean other people didn't understand it. It's one big begging the question fallacy. You flat out, even proudly, admitted to the fallacy, because YOU don't understand the problem: you define a god as _having to exist_ (necessary) and then end up with your god having to exist. Not only that, but you talk down on people because maybe they don't know you defined it as such _which is another flaw:_ you didn't define the term but fully rely on the definition making it work (while the definition IS the fallacy). So not only do you have a circular argument where none of the steps matter because you flat out start by defining that the conclusion of the argument is true (which again is the begging the question fallacy) but then you don't even make that part of the argument, and then you talk down on people for _still_ recognizing your circular reasoning. Also, nice showmanship of the infamous apologist dishonesty. In the video of the atheist experience he _clearly_ says that his definition of a unicorn is that it MUST exist, so it's NOT CONTINGENT in contrast to your obvious and demonstrable lie. FFS man, you show people the video that proves you are lying about the video... how stupid are you?
I don’t think your last part works on the premise of why is the unicorn necessary. If it’s necessary because it has the attributes of an all powerful being then the relevance of it being a unicorn drops and no longer matters as the unicorn is a chosen form or irrelevant to its ability’s purpose or intent.
I don’t think it’s _impossible_ to refute. 1. By definition, if God exists, then the proposition "God does not exist" is self-contradictory. 2. The proposition, "God does not exist" is not self-contradictory. 3. Therefore, by definition, God does not exist.
You're joking, right? By definition, if an orange exists, the proposition "an orange is the color orange" is self contradictory. 2 the proposition "an orange is not the color orange" is not self contradictory. 3 therefore, by definition, an orange does not exist
I use the toddler argument. If a Toddler asks you how did we get here? You tell them God. Toddler says Ok. If you tell them any other answer the Toddler gets confused. The earliest mind can grasp God, and yet the most intelligent of minds in this world struggle with it. Its Gods method to keep man humble. 1 Corinthians 1:19-21 KJV For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
I like how the video showed the problem with the argument, defining a unicorn as a horse with a horn THAT EXISTS and why that doesn't prove existence. I am disappointed someone who saw that wouldn't see how defining god as "necessary to exist" is the Exact Same Thing. One could definite super-unicorns as the best kind of unicorn that necessarily exists and get the same argument. "Existence" isn't a property you get to ascribe as part of the definition.
Hardly... asking is a MGB necessary is the same as asking if red is red... If a mGB wasn't necessary it would be another contingent being, and not be MG. Also, I addressed MG unicorns here: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 1) Never said existence is a property, that is a straw man.
***** And yet, red things exist or don't exist. Even though a red object would be defined as a red thing that exists, that definition doesn't bring red objects into existence. You have to demonstrate that. Even if a "Maximally great being" can be defined as something that requires existence to avoid being self-contradictory, that doesn't add any evidence as to the thing's existence in our reality. Existence as an attribute, quality, or characteristic of something's definition does not in any way necessitate it's existence in any possible reality.
Suzina And where did I say definitions alone entail existence? They obviously have to rely on metaphysical possibility, which I demonstrate here: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2) No where in the definition does a MGB require existence... That is it fallaciously equivocate necessity and existence... You should stop taking your cues from AnticitizenX who clearly has never read anything on necessity... Existence is not an attribute or a property, as Kant clearly demonstrated and to assume necessity is existence is absurd...
***** Great! "No where in the definition does a MGB require existence... " Now that we can agree to discount where this video states at 4:15 that existence (specifically you say necessary existence) is required by the definition, we can agree that premise 3 is false. Either necessary existence is required by a "maximally great being" or premise 3 "Maximally Great Beings necessarily exist in all possible worlds" is false. (Not sure who AnticitizenX is, but arguments stand or fall based on their logic, not the author, so I don't care too much what he/she said)
Suzina Huh? That is necessity, not existence... The definition of ontological necessity does not mean existence by definition, it means "cannot fail to exist if possible." It is a way for something to exist, not existence by definition. In other words, it describes a type of existence like something can exist contingently. Have you ever read anything on necessity like, "Naming and Necessity" or "The Nature of Necessity"? Necessity doesn't equal existence....
To sum it up: "it is possible that a maximally great being (m.g.b. of g.o.d.) exists therefor it exists.." That is just a linguistic trick to define god into being... who is to say what this 'maximally' entails? You just define it as good? how is that implied? what counts as maximally good? "it is possible for the maximally round thing to exist... there for it does..'" ...there is your prove perfect spheres exists! now bring me one...
Nope: The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?) GMPs are properties that are ontologically beneficial in all possible worlds. Rounds things do not entail necessity. That should be obvious....
***** You list these GMproperties that you'd like it to have: good, powerfull, nessecary, a being, .... Who came up with those? i'll agree that those seem 'great things', but you still are just attributing things to the vague term 'great' without demonstrating them. The trickiest one is 'neccesary'. This holds the premise that it is logically possible for 'beings' to be nessecary... (just like omnipotence only works inside the logically possible) All this argument does is state it is possible for something to necessarily exist, and then throw in all other atrributes you'd like with that. You need to demonstrate that a) necessary existence is possible b) all other atributes are related to this 'existing' (incl it being 'a being') I'll rephrase the example : P1 'It is possible for 'a glob' to exist. We define a glob as a 'maximally perfect material thing'.. where 'maximally perfect' entails all qualities such as "roundness, necessary existence, frictionlessness, silentness, and opaqueness..." Conclusion: a glob, 'a perfect round, opague, ... material thing', exists
P.G. Burgess Pretty much that is the philosophical definition going back to St Augustine.... These properties are GMPs because it is pretty obvious and intuitive. If there is a reason to doubt they are ontologically beneficial then someone needs to prove one. Why wouldn't necessity be possible. I even explained why it is a posteriori: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument The other properties follow because a MGB entails all GMPs by definition... Roundness is not a GMP because being round means one must be physical and be bound by the laws of space-time and matter.
"GMPs are properties that are ontologically beneficial in all possible worlds." -being eternal in a unchanging, everlasting world seems not benificial -being 'good' might not be benificial in a cruel world these are not 'obvious' in all worlds.. perhaps in this one. Even more.. those gmp's are non-related and therefor not necessarily combined in 'one being'. If 'a posteriori' ' is a good staring point for you... it seems one could be more powerfull if one is less good. (or better but less powerfull). therefor the gmp's do not lead to one mgb with godlike properties (where they are required to be both maximal) There is still no link between your gmp's and your 'necessacity'. The leibniz argument is not realy 'accepted' science ... and the whole argument stands or falls on it... so at least it should be mentioned as a premise in the onthological argument.
P.G. Burgess So it is better to exist continently where you are dependent and can fail to exist instead of being self-sustaining? IN what possible world is that ontologically beneficial? Moral perfection means lacking vices. a morally perfect being would triumph in a cruel world because nothing could bring Him Down. Power is not contingent on evil in any way... The link is a being that entails all GMPs... And just being ad hoc with the LCA isn't an argument...
At 4:56 - By saying that "God (Maximally Great Being) = Necessity" , you are defining God into existence. So the argument presented is already inherently circular.
Sam O Necessity doesn't entail existence. One has to be necessary and metaphysically possible. So a MGB is not defined into existence because the definition alone doesn't tell us if it is possible or not.
Sam O That is a setting up a straw man and knocking it over. God is not reasoned into existence, but is shown through reasoning it is the logical conclusion. You can't just phrase questions to assume a certain view of logic.
I am an atheist. Someone proposed this argument and I couldn't understand it. You are easy to understand. Thank you for this. I am starting to question my atheism. But then lies the question, what religion should I go to?
I'm glad I could help you in some way. Feel free to ask me any more questions if need be. For your other question, of which religion is the correct one, that is really a two part question, the first being which is the one that has the most evidence and conforms to reality and which one makes the most sense. I would argue Christianity fits both of these categories, in that we can argue for the historical evidence of the resurrection. But for the second part you will not find a God like Christ and these will explain: Why Christianity is Different - Dr. Timothy Keller The Truth About Christianity I hope that helps. Let me know what you think.
I am still lost as a bastard on Father's Day as to how this is a compelling argument to the existence of God. I see it falling apart at premise 3, because God could not exist in any possible world where God doesn't exist. What am I missing?
It doesn't matter which religion you pick. They're all made up. That's why there are so many of them, and why they always suit the society that makes them up. So sure, pick any that make you feel better.
Try to find a religion that isn't as steeped in tribalism and sexism as the evil abrahamic faiths. Try, instead, to go for the religion that has actual evidence, rather than creatively interpreted poetry and the ravings of madmen that used to be called 'prophets'. Do not choose a religion who's head prophet was a child rapist. I would hope you're too moral to uphold such a person as 'good'.
Alvin is using a perfectly normal assumption. its like asking numbers are abstract. Are they ... Isn't that ... Not it isn't. Abstractness is in the concept of number but a number is can still be argued over.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 But your still assuming. Is necessary existence always greater? For example. I would say that it is not the case that it is greater or better for someone who commits genocide to exist. That at very least rules out the god of the Bible as being Maximally Great.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 Counter example: 1) If belief in a MGB is expected, it is greater for the being to give direct revelation and evidence. 2) Many people, myself included have not received direct revelation. Therefore, by contradiction, it is not possible that a MGB exists. Therefore premise 1 of the Ontological Argument is false. You see the kinds of problems you get into with the subjectivity of 'greater' or 'better'?
(From last Comment) tribbles exist because there is no detectable synthetic evidence for their existence. Just like the MGB described in the ontological argument can't be confirmed to exist without any detectable synthetic evidence. The Ontological argument basically boils down to: P1: I can conceive of a being with certain analytical properties P2: One of the analytical properties is that he synthetically exists (cont)
The definition of necessary, as stated in the video, is an entity that exists in all possible worlds. So, you are basing your argument over the existence of something over the basis that it exists? So what's the point of the argument? You might as well just say God is maximumly great being, therefore he is necessary, and something that is necessary exists in all possible world, therefore God exists. I'm by no mean, trying to deny God's existence, but the question at hand is the argument, which is logically unsound.
Zeus by Greek's definition, Odin by Norse mythology, Allah, by Quran's definition can all be used to replace God in this case. Imagine a possible world where people believe an omnipotent, all mighty Unicorn which happens to be a Maximum great being in their religious text, by extension, a god-like Unicorn exist?
God, in this case, is a predicate. Existence is not a predicate. If a triangle exists, it is necessary to have 3 sides. But it could be that no triangle exist at all. Because the idea of existence isn't part of how we define a triangle. If God exists, he will be an MGB, but that doesn't mean that he exists.
Premise 1: It's possible that God exists. Definition: God = maximally great being = a *necessary* being... that has all good properties to the max, like being all-powerful and all-knowing. Premise 1: It's *possible* that a *necessary* being exists... and so on... This entire argument fails at the first premise.
@Eljot79 We use the word possibility to mean different things. Sometimes we mean it can happen (e.g. going to Mars is possible), other times we mean we don't know it can happen (it's possible we may figure out how to travel faster than light). Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's necessary. So if you're just going to start out with "God is necessary" in the first premise, then what is the point of the rest of the argument?
so you think the argument fails because you don't believe it to be possible that a necessary being exists yet your ability to think consciously transcends the material your body is made from...
@@cmarran In modal logic "A necessary truth is a truth that could not fail to be true", such as 1+1=2. The way I see it, there is no point in making an argument if you're going to start the conversation with "this must be true". Possibility in this context would mean we already know it's true, like it's possible to get 2 from 1+1.
The MGB, or _Maximally Great Burger_, necessarily exists within my mouth in all possible worlds. But I haven't even had breakfast yet! :( Seriously though, you can also use this argument for a MGMB, a 'Maximally Great Malevolent Being', who in order to be considered as maximally great, must necessarily be more powerful than any God. Are you really ready to define the MGMB into existence?
Well, sorta. You just used CS Lewis claims about evil merely being a perversion of good. I could claim the opposite, that good is merely a perversion of evil. The supposed existence of altruism doesn't help since it's highly questionable. It should in fact be perfectly possible to use your argument for the existence of a maximally evil being, if not it's a flawed argument. That you happen to prefer a maximally great being is irrelevant. Excuses for why a maximally evil being can't exist can simply be mirrored and used for the non-existence of a maximally great being, assuming those excuses are sound. In any case, if sound, all the argument would show is it's rational to conclude a maximally great or evil being may exist, as Plantinga himself says: _“Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (Plantinga "The Nature of Necessity" 1974, 221)._ In addition, as I said in my first message, if it worked the way some theists seem to hope, the argument could summon into existence any maximally great X, or maximally evil X, of any kind:- if I can imagine it, it must necessarily be real!
If that is the case you need to show how evil can be done for evil's sake, and you need to show evil can be done without something good happening, like power, pleasure, or safety. Just asserting ood is merely a perversion of evil is not good enough. Second, that is actually quote mining Platinga, as I post the full quote at the end of this video: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
+InspiringPhilosophy You need to show how good can be done for good's sake, and you need to show good can be done without something evil happening, like greed, fear, or envy. Just asserting evil is merely a perversion of good, and quoting CS Lewis on the matter, is not good enough. In fact, it's downright evil of you! There's some evidence right there :P (P.S. I included Plantinga's whole quote above -no edits - how does that constitute quote mining?)
Matt Smith Sure, a child gives a flower to his mother to make her happy. I went over this in the video and demonstrated you can have good without evil.
As a Christian who certainly believes that God exists and is eternal, I’m struggling with these premises. So, a “possible world” is a hypothetical situation. And “God” is necessary. I agree, God is necessary. But to the atheist, God is not necessary. The atheist doesn’t say “It is possible that God doesn’t exist.” Thus, leaving the door open for the possibility that God does exist. No, he says “It is not possible that God exists.” Seems to me that an atheist could flip the premises around to his favor by saying: Premise 1: It is not possible that God exists. Premise 2: If it is not possible that God exists, then God doesn’t exist in some possible worlds (or in any hypothetical situation). Premise 3: If God doesn’t exist in some possible worlds, then God doesn’t exist in all possible worlds. Premise 4: If God doesn’t exist in all possible worlds, then doesn’t exist in the actual world. Premise 5: If God doesn’t exist in the actual world, then God doesn’t exist. As a former, hard-core atheist, that is how I thought. The atheist’s struggle is knowing that he and the universe exist, but, at some point in time didn’t. Leaving him pondering the question of “How does something exist now when nothing existed before to cause what exists now?” For me, the only plausible answer to this question is, something immaterial outside of this existence must have existed to create this existence.
The Modal Argument is actually a rather different argument than Anselm's, though they might be equivalent, given the context of Anselm's Platonic Metaphysic. The trick here, I think, is the assertion, unproblematic at first glance, that Necessary Being exists *IN* a possible world. This is what Aristotle might call a category shift. In Set Theory, we might call it Inverting the Set, presenting Necessary Being (NB) as part of the Set of Possible Being, rather than the other way around. In reality, to say that a NB exists in a possible world is to contradict oneself. Possible Worlds can only contain Contingent Beings, while NB contains all possible worlds by definition. To hypothesize a Possible World that contains a given being is to characterize said being as contingent in the first place. Note that this is what happens in plain language all the time. When Rod Steiger asks us in the Twilight Zone to picture a world with various bizarre oddities, he is simultaneously acknowledging that such oddities are simultaneously false in this world ('Picture *a world*') and nonetheless conceptually feasible (*Picture* a world). This means that no MGB can be hypothesized to exist in a Possible World; because to state that this being exists in a Possible World is precisely to state that it exists Possibly, hence contingently; hence the being is not necessary, hence the being is *not* the MGB. Reductio ad Absurdum, QED. Thus, the initial hypothesis is unintelligible. If I hypothesize a MGB under the condition of Necessity being a Great-making property, then I CANNOT consistently ALSO hypothesize this being as existing in a *possible* world. I can only hypothesize this Being existing Absolutely or not at all, and the argument never gets off the ground.
+Life of Brian If a NB is in all possible worlds, then possible worlds contain NB, not just contingent beings, and there is no contradiction. Possible doesn't mean contingent. A possible world is a logical construct of the actual world, not a contingent thing along side a NB.
+InspiringPhilosophy The whole gist of my point lies in the crucial distinction between saying that Possible Worlds *are contained* in NB and saying that Possible Worlds *contain* NB. The first is unintelligible. Possible Worlds *cannot contain* NB. The premise of a MGB being *in* a possible world is self-contradictory. MGB either is or is not, regardless of possible worlds (if MGB participates in NB).
+InspiringPhilosophy Possible Worlds, as I understand them, represent various permutations of contingent potential, arrangements of things that can exist in principle, that are not self-contradictory or otherwise unfeasible. To say 'x exists in a possible world' is to say, essentially, that 'x is feasible'. And this is why I see the premise of NB existing in a *possible* world as being incoherent. A possible world means nothing if not an actualization of feasible though unrealized potential. But Necessary Being has no potential that is not actualized. So if you say that something possessing the property of NB exists in a possible world, you are in one sense guilty of redundancy and in another of an omission. To postulate NB in the realm of possibility is to postulate NB into existence in actuality. The argument hence does nothing that the postulate didn't do already.
+Life of Brian Right, so what is wrong with saying a NB is possible? This doesn't show a NB exists in the actual world, but it shows that since a NB is logically coherent and possible then any logical construct of the actual world we can come up with, must contain one. So if any logical construct of the actual world has a NB it is reasonable to conlcude the actual world does as well.
Hi IP. I'm a theist, so my intention isn't to have a heated, intense internet-style religious debate with you, but I do have a question I'd like to see you answer, if you can. I used to believe this argument to be very effective, until recently. What began to change my mind was a realization that we don't have any real examples of anything with necessary existence, so we can't know if it's a possible property. Let me explain. At 3:24 you gave some examples, namely Numbers, Absolute Truths, and Shape Definitions. But is there any evidence to show that these actually exist independent of thought? It seems to me that things like Numbers, Definitions, and those sorts of things are just ways we measure reality. They exist in our heads, and that's it. So my question to you is, do you have any other examples of entities that exist necessarily, or can you convince me that abstract objects exist externally?
Yes, the answer to this is to point out when we say God is possible, we are saying He is not just logically possible, but metaphysically possible. And the only way something can be metaphysically possible is if it relies on a posteriori arguments from evidence. See here: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2)
Are there any arguments that can give metaphysical support to the property of necessary existence? So far it seems that necessary existence (i.e. existing in all possible worlds) is a logically possible property, but not metaphysically possible property. Forgive me if I missed something and I'm just speaking out of ignorance. Thanks for responding.
PirishLad Yes, there is a good one in particular: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument We can show the necessity in metaphysics for a necessary substance.
Hi I want to thank you for making these videos. This is good way to spend time listening and studying. It is good to see that there are young people who have learned to think their faith more deebly like I have. In fifty years apologists like Craig, Lennox, Zacharias etc are gone and there have to be someone who will pass their knowledge. But I have one objection to ontological argument. I may not understand the concept of the possible worlds, but my objection goes like this: I simply don't see any implication with those premises. That may be, because we define God as nessessary being, but without any positive arguments supporting the nesessarity of God, therefore we are just making a blind assumption that God must be nessessary, which can be shown false formulating an argument like this: Ontological argument only works if God is set to be a nessessary being. Premise 1: If God is nessessary being, then there are no logically possible worlds where God doesn't exist. Premise 2: There are logically possible worlds where God doesn't exist. It follows: God is not nessessary being. Therefore: Ontological argument doesn't work. I have abandoned ontological argument because of this objection what I made. do you have answer for this?
The argument argues from the properties primarily: is a being possible that would contain all GMPs, which include necessity, who we then call God. To ask why God is a necessary being is like asking why is red a color. It is by definition. I would recommend this other video I did. There may be logical possible worlds where God doesn't exist, but what are important is metaphysical possible worlds: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
Okay, now I maybe understand it. Correct me if I am wrong. In order to use my objection, we have to proof that God is not a nessessary being, which as now we can't do. Did I get you right?
***** _"There may be logical possible worlds where God doesn't exist, but what are important is metaphysical possible worlds"_ No. What's important is the probable worlds, given what we know about reality, because any metaphysics can simply be dismissed and replaced with some other metaphysics that turns what's necessary under one system into impossibilities in another. It's only that a world is probable given the evidence that could ever give us a rational reason to believe something exists.(This is why science doesn't do metaphysics)
jungledyret100 _"In order to use my objection, we have to proof that God is not a nessessary being, which as now we can't do. Did I get you right?"_ That's Plantinga's conclusion at the end of his paper. He thinks the naturalist is at a disadvantage because of this. However, there are mirror arguments for Naturalism, so the MOA is meaningless mental masturbation.
Number 3 and 4 have always stumped me. If god exist in the hypothetical world he also exist in reality. A Real GOD is greater than one that exist hypothetically. WHAT?
The conclusion doesn't go bend logic. If God exists in all logical constructs of the actual world then any logical construct must contain God. So the conclusion is it is logical to accept God exists in the actual world.
Rundori He says it does not prove god, but then qualifies that with the addition that it shows it is the only reasonable outcome that god exists. Not much of a difference. Really it should be that belief in god is not illogical which also does not prove god actually exists. " If God exists in all logical constructs of the actual world then any logical construct must contain God. So the conclusion is it is logical to accept God exists in the actual world" - big jump here which is unjustified. All you can get from your statement is as follows. " If God exists in all logical constructs of the actual world then any logical construct must contain God. So the conclusion is it is logical to accept God exists in the actual world as a logical construct"
others have refuted many parts of this argument. If you think a logical construct, reality, and our perception of reality are all the same thing, you are engaged in an equivocation fallacy. And I know this not an argument for a proof.
Rundori Oh sorry, only the first paragraph was for you. While I agree that this is not an argument for proof InspiringPhilosophy seems to try and pawn it off as proof by a different name. The rest was for *****
The one question I have is from 4:32 for "Great making properties". Why is Absolute Omnibenevolence part of the great making properties when God is not all peaceful, when he has wrath? Can you define this?
Back to Orthodoxy Well, a better word i should have used would be moral perfection, since that is what I meant, I just out down the wrong thing. Moral perfection i about doing the right thing all the time, whether that is peace of justice.
Gotcha. I was about to say, as a Christian, I highly question that attribute. We may have different understandings of it but from how it is defined is that benevolent is "peaceful" and "omni" meaning "ALL".
A huge fallacy of Equivocation. The number 2 or a square does NOT exist in nature. As you say, they are axiomatic and defined into "existence", thus they are CONCEPTIONAL. Exactly like a unicorn. Following this logic, yes, of course the concept of God exists. Or, differently put, God exists as a conceptual being (let us put aside the fact, that using "exists" is also ambiguous. We refer the world to [natural] phenomena and so the word "exist" is begging the question in this situation). In fact, I would say the conceptual being God exists in many versions, probably as many people are around the world. Because the very definition is VAGUE - just like your definition of "maximally great" (why is "maximally corrupt" not being considered as part of being "maximally great"? because you define it so?) And then, when you made a tautology, you equivocate the two usages of "exist" and thus the "conceptual being God" with the "actual existing God, who created the universe, a natural phenomena, and watches you while you masturbate". This, my sir, is just a fancily-covered fallacy, and atheists understand it well enough. ...And we are not even talking about evidence.
I never said they exist in nature... They are abstract truths of reality. Second, you are confusing the modal version with the original version. Existence is not used a property, it is necessity, so no equivocation happens. As for a Maximally corrupt being, i deal with that here: ua-cam.com/video/ixqsZP7QP_o/v-deo.html
"I never said they exist in nature... " You never said it about 2 and a square, but you implied that about God. That is actually your conclusion (you may argue that God is supernatural, but he is/was still effecting the natural world). "They are abstract truths of reality." Again, confusing definitions. "Truth", because we define it that way. When we are talking about natural phenomenon, we use "truth" as "which comports with reality". Even more, because the easy confusion, we try to avoid it in science altogether. That's why we never "prove" or consider anything as "Truth" in science, it is not even our goal. "Existence is not used a property, it is necessity." For the "conceptual being God". For the "actual existing God", you have to demonstrate existence or prove the opposite notion to be false. You cannot conceive God or anything else into being. Only the concept of God (or the concept of anything else). Just like a painter cannot paint a house. He can only paint a PICTURE of a house. I will check your video about the Maximally corrupt being.
No, not at all. A MGB is not bound by space-time, if He was He would not be a MGB because He would be limited. "Again, confusing definitions. "Truth", because we define it that way. " - Is is absolutely true we define truth? Nothing you said changes the fact that mathematics is objectively true and necessary. we did not conceive God or anything else into being., we simply demonstrated if a MGB is possible, then every logical construct of the actual world would have one, and then the most logical way to view the actual world is with a MGB.
"A MGB is not bound by space-time" Again, for the conceptual being. That's how you define it. It doesn't mean that such a thing indeed exists. "Is it absolutely true we define truth?" (I guess you wanted to say this instead of "Is is") Really? Are we arguing about definitions? Because your question is about that. But to address your point - well yes, it is absolutely true that we define truth if we are talking about deductive/axiomatic truths. If you are not doing that, then you are not defining truth, by DEFINITION. But you completely neglected the point that you just equivocated mathematical/deductive truths with facts about reality/existential "truths". "Nothing you said changes the fact that mathematics is objectively true and necessary. " Well, no. Mathematics is arbitrarily true and deductive in nature, it is just the most efficient language to describe natural/logical/economical/pick-your-one phenomenon. Change "mathematics" to "English" in your sentence and see if it is still sound (of course, I do recognize that mathematical or linguistic correlations are a different, but you did not talk about that). "we simply demonstrated if a MGB is possible, then every logical construct of the actual world would have one" Even if that is true, it wouldn't mean that it is part of reality. You didn't demonstrate the possibility of a MGB in terms of reality. Logical constructs might be beautiful and valid in structure, but they don't tell you anything about the real world on their own. Again, that's why we have induction.
AdolfvonHeidrich Quantum field theory actually acknowledges existence of natural numbers as objective reality in the very nature of space and not merely a conceptual construct. Secondly, injection mapping is a well established empirically verified structure in nature, this alone preserves the countable sets and thus are necessary concepts. For example, if you deny existence of the realities of numbers then all of theoretical physics like string theories, Dbranes, etc tend to become meaningless.
A dialogue I had with someone on this argument: Him: The fact that one can think of a being that is maximally great and, therefore necessary, doesn't make the existence of that being therefore necessary. It just means that such a being can be imagined within a particular set of consistent and coherent logical axioms and proofs. It says nothing about actual reality. Me: So, in other words, it's possible for a maximally great being to exist. You've basically defined what a "possible world" is in the context of this argument. He hasn't said a word to me about the argument since.
I assume that one party or the other in that conversation was wanting to show that God really exists, but I cannot tell which is which. Who was arguing for God here? The conclusion that God exists in some possible world is not very interesting. The relevant conclusion is that God exists in the world we observe ourselves to be in. The odd thing is that these arguments usually come from Christians, but nobody ever includes the step about how to get from believing in a God to believing in Jesus or believing that the Bible is more than a book of fables. Can someone point to an attempt to jump that gap?
Christopher Johnson so i can imagine a unicorn that is necesary to exist in all posible worlds. There, I just proves unicorns. This argument is circular reasoning
Question... How does it feel to cheer someone on for deceiving you? None of this is inspirational, or remotely logically sound. This is just lying for religion, otherwise known as apologetics.
Basically, if you say everything logical is fictional creation, then say is the statement everything is a fictional creation. You cannot state a principle that is beyond that criteria. If all definitions are arbitrarily assigned then so is this definition that all things are arbitrarily assigned.
Arguments are great and all (only non-fallacious ones), however someone can argue about the existence of something or a being or whatever (like the Judeo-Christian god) until they're blue in the face and it won't mean shit if it isn't demonstrable. Existential claims need an empirical basis of evidence, not just argumentation. The ontological argument is indeed fallacious but even if every premise were true and/or coherent, where is the evidence for "God" outside of the ontological argument? I can make the assertion that pink, talking, unicorn's exist and make the same argument for the existence of them (in terms of the premises of the ontological argument) but even if my claim was true and/or coherent then what's the point of believing in pink, talking, unicorn's if there is not empirical evidence to support it? In science claims are backed up with empirical evidence even though formalized logic (such as mathematics) is used as well. I will also state my problems with the modal ontological argument, they are as follows: First premise: This premise needs empirical evidence to support it, how do you know it is possible for "God" to exist? how do you know it is possible for any arbitrary deity to exist? I would also say that this initial premise commits the fallacy of "begging the question" (right off the bat your the ontological argument falls apart, from here things get worse.) Second premise: True? Third premise: Non sequitor Fourth premise: Non sequitor Fifth premise: Circular reasoning, premise five basically asserts that if "God" exists then "God" exists.
See here: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2) Where I point out their is a posteriori evidence. And the circular objection here: The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)
***** "The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)" - Premise 1: It is possible that X exists. Premise 2: If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible worlds. Premise 3: If X exists in some possible worlds, then X exists in the actual world. Premise 4: If X exists in some possible worlds, then X exists in the actual world. Premise 5: If X exists in the actual world, then X exists. Conclusion: Therefore, X exists. ‘Premise 2’ - ‘premise 5’ are just definitions and offer no new information to support ‘premise 1’. ‘Premise 1’ and the ‘conclusion’ are equivalent; this means that the ontological argument does beg the question and consequently it is circular reasoning. Even if this argument is informative it is still invalid. Lastly I would like to say that claims need to be backed up with evidence; a non-believer does not carry the burden of proof because disbelief is not equivalent to belief. Belief comes with claims; disbelief does not inherently come with claims. I was gonna type more but If I did that it would be like a TL;DR thing going on here so. "Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2)" - please see these links ----> bit.ly/1xn4GBf || bit.ly/1F1ZtRP
Jules Winnfield No, as I pointed out there is a difference between circular arguments and question begging and informative arguments are not begging the question if they are circular. Second, it is not invalid. To be invalid means the premises would not follow, and no one denies that... Second, I gave evidence in my other videos... Those videos are are still self-defeating since they rely on epistemic skepticism, which defeats itself.
Bob H Yeah, there are no schools of thought surrounding epistemic skepticism... It is all meaningless... Same old personal attacks and no arguments from you, as usual.
***** First, you did in fact point out that there is a difference between circular arguments and question begging, however you say, “In most cases the argument is both circular and question begging.” Guess what? The ontological argument in your video is both “question begging” and “circular” because ‘premise 1’ and the ‘conclusion’ are equivalent and the ‘conclusion’ is assumed to be true because after ‘premise 1’ no new information is given in ‘premise 2’ - ‘premise 5’ other than definitions that are unconvincing in the context of the argument. Secondly, "circular logic" and "begging the question" are both informal logical fallacies. As far as I can tell, informal logical fallacies may be valid, but not sound. Lastly, I do not see how, “epistemic skepticism defeats itself.” How does it defeat itself? I'm under the impression that skepticism is a useful epistemic tool in order to not be duped into believing stupid shit. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Premise 1: It is possible that 10 foot tall, Leprechaun’s exist. Premise 2: If it is possible that 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist, then 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in some possible worlds. Premise 3: If 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in some possible worlds, then 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in the actual world. Premise 4: If 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in some possible worlds, then 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in the actual world. Premise 5: If 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in the actual world, then 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist. Conclusion: Therefore, 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist. Oh, is this argument bad because it has “10 foot tall, Leprechaun’s” instead of “God (MGB)”? If not, then why? If so, then at least you’re consistent in defending the ontological argument.
Is the Ontological Argument dependent on the Contingency Argument? * If you simply argue that God is maximally great in P1, why not eliminate P2 (just jump to P3). But, it can't skip P2; otherwise, it would not be ontological. It will become another version of the Contingency Argument. * The key here is to equate the Maximally Great Being to Necessary Being from P1 to P2 and P3. * While the Contingency Argument simply argues for the actual world, the Ontological Argument wants to extend the existence of God in other possible worlds, and then go back to the actual world. * Doesn't that make the OA an unnecessary argument? What I expected from the OA is defend the definition, and make it independent of the Contingency Argument. * Normally, people would wonder: if that is the definition of God, does he actually exist? People would expect evidence. Rather than showing evidence, the OA cleverly takes a different route. It shows that you will find God in whatever possible world we could have. * Remember, the Contingency Argument doesn't have to qualify God as Maximally Great Being, but simply Necessary Being. * Therefore, my reservation is, does the Maximally Great Being necessarily exist? Or, reversing the question, does the Necessary Being have to be maximally great?
The number two does not "just exist necessarily". It's a product of a brain grouping similar things together. 2 apples are 2 things that are grouped together because they look like apples. 1 apple and 1 banana are 2 things grouped together as 2 pieces of fruit because they look like fruit. Similarly the 2 apples may be 1 green apple and 1 red apples. "2" isn't intrinsic to anything.
Let us define a Gunicorn as a maximally great unicorn. The argument applies to a Gunicorn as well. You can even do it withs godS. And even if we accepted the fallacy of this argument, it would be the same as if we accepted the cosmological argument: it would only prove the existence of A god, not of the judeo-christian god, and would only prove that we should be deists, not theists. If you fail to see all the errors of this argument, then you really aren't a philosopher. I agree that you cannot disprove the existence of God, as God is anything one wants to be. But you also cannot prove his existence. I will simply show you the two most apparent flaws of this argument: first of all, you suppose in advance the existence of God by defining it as something that must exist (hence the counter-argument made by the guy on "The Atheist Experience"). Secondly,you simply assume that it is possible that God exists, and that premise would need more proof than "The stone argument is wrong".
As I said on the teleological argument video, we don't know if the universe could have turned out a different way. This may be the only metaphysically possible world it also may not. If there are other metaphysical possible worlds, there is no evidence that God can exist in any of them.
This is totally biased. This is a tailored made argument for christians. When you quote scripture to try to make more sense of this argument you actually lose credibility.
Why do these atheists make fun of the existence of unicorns when many of these people believe in an infinite multiverse, which means that they think unicorns actually do exist?
***** I was talking about the AES (I don't know their position on the multiverse.) It seems that on QM, they take a position called handwavingism, which means that they don't give a crap.
Christopher Johnson "They don't give a crap" is easily disproven since that are quite observably bothering to watch and address and rebuttal this video. Obviously they do they give a crap, or why else ate they commenting here? Your theory that they don't give a crap is quite an observable ironic sentiment in terms of actual practice.
.. Sam.. if God is infinite, then He must be either infinitely Good, or infinitely evil.. he cannot switch between the two, for then He would be Divided, not ONE...
@@GARYWERSLEY Infinite divided by 2 is still Infinite. While the judeo-christian God represents itself as good that doesnt mean he cant be perceived as evil (see many seculars criticising Him). He can potentially be one or the other, or both depending of your personal view, either way He is the one that decides the rules, as Infinite He precedes the very notion of good and evil, the whole idea on a conceptual level. He is potentially anything or everything He wants to be or manifest or be perceived as.
@@sam.246 .. the Judaeo Christian Arabic God does not exist.. the rules were made by men.. claims of Divine Revelation are nonsense.. indifference precedes the notions of good and evil.. if there is a Supreme Being, then it is indifferent... if God is Good, then He cannot be Evil.. if He is Evil, then He is not Good.. an evil God would be no better than Satan, who also does not exist... you describe a God with human feelings, or more so.. this would be a God who changes his divine mind, sometime loving, sometime hating.. just like us humans.. such a God is not One, but many passions.. there is no good reason to believe in such a God.. there is no Saviour, no Salvation...
@@GARYWERSLEY Nope, Im saying He can potentially be good or evil, He infact decides what is or not, so If He wants to be perceived as only good He can as well. For example, in this world, which has certain specifications, good could be X and evil Y. But if He wanted to create a world where good is Y and evil is X, He could, He might not but He could. He decides what is good or evil in any possible scenario, He is potentially anything He wants to be.
@@sam.246 ..unicorns are not finite beings, they are imaginary beings, same as God, same as angels.. but if God is infinite, then he is either infinitely good or infinitely evil.. meaning, deliberately good or deliberately evil.. but no, God appears to be infinitely indifferent.. He cannot change His Divine Mind, because he is not Mind... evil is a human concept...
Perhaps I'm missing something: It sounds like an Axiom of your argument is that God is defined as a "necessary" being (4:56). If this is the case, what need is there for 4 more steps of logic? I even thought Premise 1 states the opposite. It states that God's existence is POSSIBLE, which is specifically distinct and mutually-exclusive from NECESSARY.
***** But if is something is POSSIBLE, that implies it might NOT exists. But by the definitions used in the video, if something is necessary, that implies is MUST exists, this in turn means it is impossible for it to NOT exist. This is why I conclude that calling something both POSSIBLE and NECESSARY is self contradictory, and effectively nonsensical. I realize I'm being semantic here, but semantics is really the only tool we have for communication of this idea. I felt Premise 1 clearly posits that God has the property of POSSIBLE, which implies that he cannot have the property NECESSARY (in the case of the Ontological Argument). Thanks, by the way, for getting my brain thinking!
Glurth Iam Well if something is defined at necessary that doesn't mean it also exists. it might be an impossible definition. Something has to be necessary and metaphysically possible for it to logically follow it would exist.
***** I'm tying to follow your own definitions, to avoid confusion, in particular the one presented at 4:56 that states a necessary being exists in all possible worlds. (Which implies, there are no possible world in which a necessary being does NOT exist) This appears to be contradicted by your comment "if something is defined at necessary that doesn't mean it also exists". Can you reconcile that?Impossible definition? Sorry brother, but this sounds like a cop-out: how can you create or defend a logical argument about something that you cannot define? I'm afraid this is confirming my opinion that, given the definitions in the video, the ontological argument, is in fact, illogical. Regarding your last sentence, I am living proof that something does NOT need to be necessary, for it to exist. The world would have got-on just fine if I had never been born.
Glurth Iam It is easy. I could define a tree as necessary, that doesn't mean it exists. Since a tree is a physical thing that requires time and a creation it cannot be necessary. So giving definition doesn't entail they are coherent or possible.
The idea of a Maximally Great Being is a useless and empty concept. You can come up with the greatest conceivable being that has the best of absolutely everything. It is "maximally great." However all I have to do is say "yeah well my being can do all the stuff that yours can do, except he can also beat yours up." Suddenly your being is no longer maximally great. It's just like trying to come up with the largest possible number. You are always able to just add one more.
***** Didn't you understand? The concept of a Maximally Great Being is a logically impossible one. You are always able to add 1, meaning nothing can ever be maximally great.
SuperSupermanX1999 The argument is not the most powerful, but all powerful. All we are saying is the greatest possible being, or the maximal being... By definition nothing would be beyond that.
***** "by definition nothing would be beyond that." That doesn't change the fact that it is still a logically impossible concept. Once again, you can always just add 1 to the maximally large number, so you can also always just add one more centimetre to the size or other characteristic of the maximally great being. It is logically impossible for anything to be maximally great.
SuperSupermanX1999 No... because we are talking about the quality of properties, not the quantity... If something is omniscient it is all knowing. You can't add anything to that...
Well then we will have to agree to disagree, since reading CS Lewis led me to Christ. The logical side of me had to be satisfied if I was ever going to find truth.
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN how is evidence for god?
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN The Shroud of Turin has been debunked ages ago.
@@onlyechadtherebellious2467 who?
@@onlyechadtherebellious2467 no one has debunked it
a legend is born here...
If these are your legends, that's pretty abysmal.
@@Ilyena r/atheism be like
@@IlyenaYou guys aren't doing much better with the likes of Aron Ra, who once got steam rolled so badly by this "abysmal" man in a debate, that his own audience weren't giving him a break in the comments.
@@zbj4240That applies to you theists as well, if you really want to win our hearts then you will all have to do it in a Christ like manner. Not act like monkeys like the other previous comments on top before you.
@@IlyenaKeep of the arrogance, thank you.
I used to think that the ontological argument didn’t work, because of Kant’s criticism about existence not being a property. This was before I heard of the modal version of the argument. The modal version, unlike Anselm’s original version, makes the argument far more clear.
It still does I believe
It’s still a horrendously bad argument. First off, I can easily imagine a far superior being to yahweh/allah, but besides that, the entire argument is literlaly no more than saying 1. God can possibly exist 2. So God exist. That’s how circular this argument is.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v The argument doesn't prove the existence of the Christian or Muslim God, but simply God as defined in the argument. You have to accept the existence of God before deciding who God is.
IP also put out a video responding to your second objection entitled something like "The Ontological Argument (begging the question?)"
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v you can "easily imagine a far superior being to God"? I am interested in hearing what you think a maximally good entity entails...
I came here to mention Kant and I saw this comment. Will have to check it out
Atheists in 2012: I am green and polkadotted and because I say it, it must be true.
Atheists in 2023: I am the opposite sex and because I say it, it must be true unironically.
Thought the exact same thing. Thanks for having it typed out already so i didnt have to!
Dude fr
I was thinking how her argument would be taken by the postmodernist gender Nazis...
Oh goodness you're right! 😅
Can you leave trans people alone?
First time I managed to understand the Ontological argument. Thank you very much.
It is difficult to understand. Most atheists who think there is no good, claim it has fallacies
But it does have fallacies. All we've done here is define God = Maximally Great -> Necessarily Exists, which is then defined as existence in all possible worlds, or 'it cannot not exist' which is the same as 'it exists'.
All the ontological argument has done is say "A being that I define to exist, exists", which is a classic 'Begging the Question' fallacy, where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. The only difference is that this premise is hidden behind a bunch of definitions.
@@DanDan-eh7ul The first part you had is not a fallacy the second part is debatable but the first part is very straightforward
why would an atheist who's not a modal realist have to accept anything in that argument?
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma uf they try to debunk it by using science
An objective definition for God as the GOAT:
Power Level: Infinity
Love Level: Infinity
Wisdom Level: Infinity
Creative Level: The Entire Universe
1 person in Hell makes his love level utterly void and his hate level infinity. We also have no objective meaning his Bible so his wisdom level is also less than that of the majority of best selling authors. He may have infinite power but he does not use it. We have made far more interesting universes so his creativity is again sub-par. So if a god is a maximally great being he is not real
@@n0etic_f0x Can you simultaneously call someone hateful and meaningless while also offering no standard of your own?
n0etic Fox that’s your opinion
@@jlupus8804 is this the "you can't have moral standards without god" argument? Because we can.
But how do you know your standard, God, is a good standard?
@@DanDan-eh7ul It was not that argument lol.
What I was asking Fox was to at least have an alternative to God, but it seemed he was more interested in being contrarian and responsibility-free than he was to having standards.
How do i know God is a good standard? That's a good question. I'll give the best answer off the top of my head.
The 10 commandments give clear foundations to moral laws.
The standard to follow all these laws is "perfection", as God Himself is perfect.
There are certain kinds of penalties each violation has to breaking each law- before Hell, these penalties had to be physical in order to foreshadow Hell.
There is also forgiveness of sin. The old testament had clean animal sacrifices as that; the new had the Carpenter from Nazareth.
What makes them perfect is how they manifest in justice. The moral laws are universally applicable. A forgiving heart is also great for peace. So this all shows, God not only wants justice, but He also wants mercy and peace, and He wants us to want the same as He does. To want these things, it starts with wanting to be Holy (pure) as He is.
God's standard keeps in mind character, duty, and consequence. So therefore, God's standard is perfect.
Is there a flaw seen in any of this? Can universalism or virtue ethics without God's standard even come close?
I definitely agree with what you said near the end, that if someone is still confused that they should watch this video again. Like you, Michael, I also took a little while before I fully grasped The Ontological Argument. When I was just beginning to study apologetics, and I ran into this argument, I was like a lot of lay atheists who encounter this argument. I was like "Boy, this is garbage!" I loved the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine-Tuning and Moral Arguments, but this argument just seemed like philosophical gibberish. But I took the time to really look into it because I thought "Really smart people like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga use it, so maybe I shouldn't be quite so dismissive of it."
Now, it's become one of my favorite arguments! Indeed, I even defend the argument in my book "The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity" (shameless plug). What I love the most about it is that there's only one disputable premise, and also this argument gets you a God with all of the "Omni" attributes. Do a study of comparative religions. What religion has an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, morally perfect, necessary God? This isn't Thor or Loki or Zeus we're talking about! This portrait looks more like Yahweh of Judeo-Christianity! Indeed, that's the point I make in my aforementioned book. I argue that only Christianity has a God who matches the portrait of a Maximally Great Being.
Anyway, good work, IP! I love your videos! God bless. :-)
I'm going to buy your books man
I'm Catholic, and minored in philosophy. I have heard several remarkably bright philosophers (including my professor who was agnostic) say that the ontological argument, properly written, is a sound deductive argument. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true...
Sometimes I feel like I get the argument, sometimes I don't...
Honest question -- why does this argument not work for, say, "a maximally evil being" or "a maximally bad argument." ?
Id say the structures of a maximally evil being are built differently in a way that makes the premises not compatible. The ontological argument has primarily to do not with God's goodness but his power, creation, scientific laws etc. A maximally good or evil being is irrelevant to the question.
Trent Horn today released a video addressing this point lol
@@Furetto126 Excellent ~ yes I saw, and I'm planning to watch, thanks!
The logic actually does follow from these, but you'd reject the first premise. It's not possible for a maximally evil being to exist, or a maximally bad argument to exist.
The argument works just as well for a maximally great evil (or for a maximally great anything, for that matter). The problem is not with the validity of the argument but with the insistence that “maximally great” is a coherent idea when it is applied without limits. (You are defining something as being at a max, which implies a limitation, and yet conceiving it of being infinite at the same time.)
"Can an omnipotent being toad an 11"?
I'M DYIN'!!!
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science
Here's the fatal flaw in the argument as presented in the video. At around 6:43, the following is stated:
"Are there objections to the argument? Yes, but only in Premise 1 since the other premises just follow modal logic and are uncontroversial. The only way for skeptics to debunk this argument is to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist."
Premise 1: It is possible that God (Maximally Great Being) exists.
A skeptic does not need to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist. That would certainly be sufficient to debunk the argument, but it isn't necessary. One only need point out that no argument has been provided in support of Premise 1 being true. And yes, it is necessary to defend that premise. The speaker says so.
In the video by the same author entitled "Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 1)", here: ua-cam.com/video/ixqsZP7QP_o/v-deo.html ... the speaker states "All I need to do is defend Premise 1 of the ontological argument because the other four follow modal logic and are not disputed. So all I need to show is that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist. With that out of the way I want to touch on the first objection which is ..."
But how did he get "that out of the way"? He explicitly acknowledges that he needs to DEFEND Premise 1, to SHOW that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist. But that is never done. Instead he shifts the burden of proof onto the skeptic to prove the premise false: "The only way for skeptics to debunk this argument is to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist."
No, the argument is debunked by pointing out that the speaker never even attempted to do the one thing he explicitly stated he needed to do: "All I need to do is defend Premise 1". Where is the defense of Premise 1?
I don't fully understand the argument itself, but it was interesting. I especially loved the way you described the omnipotence paradox. I never thought about it like that.
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma uf they try to debunk it by using science
God is a necessary being, nothing can exist without Him; He is foundational. Any possible world requires God to exist in order for it to be. This is true for any possible world. This would include our world, as it is possible, seeing that it has been actualized. Therefore, God exists in all worlds. Which aligns with Him being omnipresent as well.
@@dazaiel8081 that’s a pretty good description I can’t fully grasp the argument yet though.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Where does your confusion lie then? I could possibly help.
@@dazaiel8081 I simply can’t I think I can understand it OK, I can’t really pinpoint what in particular I just don’t entirely understand it, thanks wanting to help I appreciate it, also thanks for the reply.
Some questions (as Gaunilo responded to Anselm):
1) Why the MGB is coherent and logical possible?
intuitively? Are we so sure of that?
2) Putting the necessary existence into the attributes of the MGB, why isn't a begging question?
That requires an indipendent demonstration.
3) Can we make a transition from logic to reality?
4) Why do you explain Plantinga's argument instead Goedel's argument?
Good thing the people on the Atheist experience know the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy".
The “atheist experience” 😂
How
@@swazilandandbotswana8856 He does a lot of strawman and leaves out certain studies and evidence that is contrary to his points. However we shouldn't focus upon focusing on refuting atheist claims but on Christ commandments,sadly many don't(including myself which is something I need to change). I highly recommend The Channel A Voice In The Desert,they try to get people to obey Christ and his teachings again when most people don't. Here are some of his videos
ua-cam.com/video/wOc4vb0lvPs/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/tAyF0TD-Xec/v-deo.html
God bless you
P1 atheist mock God
P2 you don't mock God who doesn't exist in the first place in thier worldview
P3 since athiest do mock God
C God exists...
Dembski in his book "Being as Communion" hints at a way to demonstrate premise three by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. Here's my shot at cashing it out.
God is conceived of as an omnipotent, omniscient being. This entails that God can realize any possible world. If God exists in some possible world, this entails that in this possible world, God could realize any possible world. If God exists in some possible world, and if some possible worlds include those worlds where God doesn't exist, this entails that in the possible world where God exists, God could create a world in which He doesn't exist. But that's a self-contradiction, since for God to create a world entails His own existence.
Thus, for God to exist in some possible worlds but not all possible worlds entails a self-contradiction, which means that the matrix of possible worlds must be all or nothing with respect to God. God either exists in all possible worlds (and thus our own, and thus He must exist) or He exists in no possible worlds. This puts the onus on the naturalist to demonstrate that the concept of God is incoherent, and this is a very tough job.
+Kabane well written :)
Hi Anon,
My statement was that if the argument I set forth above was valid, the naturalist has to demonstrate that the concept of God is incoherent in order to refute theism. It wasn't a mere assertion. The justification was in the argument I presented, which was a developed form of a comment Dembski made. I'm actually undecided as to whether the argument I presented is valid, and I think I may have discovered a fatal objection (I'll write a blog post on that some other time) to it.
As for the reality of concepts, that's a very live topic in philosophy. Most folks hold to a correspondence theory of truth: truth is when a statement corresponds to reality. The difficulty for someone who isn't a realist with respect to abstract concepts is that it would entail that things everyone regards as true cannot actually be true. For example, is it true that 2+2=4? That's an abstraction, but most people don't want to go so far as to say it's not true.
Pure conceptual argumentation can demonstrate a lot of stuff.
Dembski is a genius and Being As Communion is second only to Chris Langan's CTMU.
what causes god to exist in some worlds and not exist in others?
This seems to me to be a convoluted way of saying "God either exists or he doesn't and it's up to the atheist to show me why he doesn't."
I still do not see how the mere conceiving of the possibility of a MGB makes it necessarily so. Until we know how universes are made and what laws govern reality as it exists outside of our own universe then I do not feel obliged to submit to the idea of a MGB as defined by Christianity (or Judaism or Islam).
Quick question- why does the quality of maximum greatness make God necessary? The argument made at 6:00 seems circular
he explained why shortly before it
Mmmm I disagree with premise 1. If you're going to start by saying that it's possible for god to exist then you first need to demonstrate that it is possible for him to exist.
It's not a matter of "well it hasn't been proven to be impossible", because that's not how we determine what is possible. We determine what is possible by demonstrating that it is possible, not just simply asserting that it hasn't been demonstrated to be impossible.
We have, through out the series. We show no argument can challenge p1 and we can derive metaphysical possibility: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
InspiringPhilosophy reread the way you answered that. "We show no argument can challenge p1". That right there is a demonstration that you've assumed possibility without demonstrating it.
Also what is your justification for claiming that something can be "metaphysically possible"? In the other video you linked me to it does exactly what I had mentioned by claiming that it is possible then claiming that there is no challenge to prove impossibility so therefore it is true. At 7:57 that quote is a perfect example of "since god hasn't been disproven, that means he's more likely to be proven".
To that I'd direct you to the argument of ignorance, which is what this entire argument hinges upon.
What? You are really trying to read what you want to hear in my comment... No, I have examined the arguments and have shown them to be unconvincing. See the video...
I never said God is proven because He has not been shown to be disproven. That is such a straw man. The point is we have good reasons to infer metaphysical possibility and there is no goo reason to infer the opposite: impossibility.
Your last sentence was, "...and there is no goo reason to infer the opposite: impossibility."
The only point I'm making is that claim is an argument from ignorance. If you have reason to believe that he is possible then present that. But the assertion that he hasn't been proven impossible does not get you any closer to proving that he is possible.
You said you have good reasons to infer his possibility, what are those reasons?
I did: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
Premise 1: It is possible that God does not exist.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God does not exist in some possible worlds, then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.
The argument works both ways equally well, therefore one or more of your premises is flawed.
Yup, people keep pointing this out.
This is the perfect argument for the existence of God,
for people who are already convinced of the existence of God.
Addressed: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
No, the video tries to hide the point even further.
It is logically possible that God is impossible ( as the video points out )
Therefore it is logically possible that Ontological Argument is 100% wrong.
The argument relies on other arguments for God.
As most atheists find these argument to be abject failures, the OT is left with very little.
The best you can do is that all attempts to prove the God is impossible have failed.
Well, all attempts to prove that God is possible have failed too.
So the correct answer is... we do not know.
The argument becomes,
- We do not know if God is possible or not.
- But if you already think that God is possible, then you'll think God is possible.
As I said,
the perfect argument for the existence of God,
for people who are already convinced of the existence of God
And your Premise 1 comes from his Premise 1.
If it's possible that god exists, it's possible that he doesn't exist.
You can cut that only by using, as your first premise, that god cannot not exist. And that would be circular af
But see, this is an argument for God. Try a different one.
That was the best presentation on the ontological argument I've seen.
Nah, the whole argument doesn't make sense. The word 'possible' in the first line says all, it doesn't mean god(s) actually exist.
@@PaulaBean So are you arguing it's impossible for God to exist?
@@leonardu6094 what if he were to be
@@leonardu6094 I think it's improbable, not impossible. But it needs evidence. Hard evidence; not just some stories in a book.
@@PaulaBean So by your admission, this is a very solid argument. We only need God to be possible (no logical contradictions) for this argument to be sound. Your objections, in absence of demonstrating a logical incoherence with the concept of God, don't at all refute the argument.
"The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thought" -- Bertrand Russell
Bingo.
I hold to B-theory, so I don't use the KCA, but my newest video is on the LCA, so sure, as long as it is not too long. I'll look at it tomorrow.
This is the first time the Ontological Argument has made sense to me. I am looking forward to watching your other videos on the subject.
Premise one states that ‘it is possible that God exists’, which by equivalence means ‘it is possible that God does not exist’. Premise two should merely spell out what this means in terms of PW semantics: “if it is possible that God exists, then it exists in all possible worlds or no possible worlds.” This leads to the correct conclusion that God does or does not exist.
Instead, the 'argument' ignores the ‘possibly not’ half of the proposition, and states in premise two that it is possible only that God exists (in some (meaning all) possible worlds). Is the use of ‘some’ just to add salad to the soup? It must mean ‘all’. If it means ‘fewer than all’, the premise says that it is possible God exists in a way that God cannot exist. I mean, if a cat exists as a dog, what is it?
Usually, hypothesised anomalies occupy the proper mental space for such non-things, where they do not encroach on our thoughts and behaviour in any significant way. So ideas of talking bears and our divine right as the Monarch of Nog do not slip unabated from imagination into our perception of reality. Possible World semantics is one way of speaking about thought processes involved in imagination and building perceptions of the real world.
The MGB, it is claimed by its designer, cannot be considered in this way. It is coded to cross the barrier into existence in the moment of consideration. One can imagine polite applause when Anselmo first presented his mind-game, ‘bravo, majesty’, and sly smiles all round.
When the MGB is proposed to you, you’re faced with a choice; do you hit ‘ok’ or spam it on the spot? Actually, that choice is usually obscured to increase the hit count.
But the MOA cannot reliably process this state of affairs at the _realistic_ starting situation, since at this point, MGB exists in some, but fewer than all, possible worlds. In other words, it exists hypothetically, which violates the definition of the MGB.
MGB is a hypnotic entity, not a logical one. There’s no logical way to argue it into existence from a position of it possibly not existing; to think it is for it to exist. Premise one means to say ‘God exists yay Praise him Amen. ” Instead, the author presents a salad in the hope of camouflaging the sins.
+SimsulatedId You are trying to separate logical truth and hypothetical, which is like splitting hairs. The argument is based off of what is logical and what deductively follows. It is not somehow divorced from logic. The entity has been shown to be logical and thus the argument follows.
+InspiringPhilosophy
“The argument is based off of what is logical,” you say. What it is that 'is logical', IP?
What is the ‘logical truth’ you refer to?
What is it in my argument that is ‘hypothetical’?
The entity is logical, I agree. But not the argument. The version of the MOA you present in the video is shown to be fallacious in more ways than one, by my humble self in the post above and by numerous others. Specifically, and at least, your second premise excludes the possibility that God does not exist, which is implied in premise one. How does this possibility get ruled out between premises one and two?
If ‘possible’ in premise one is in the sense of ‘possible because actual’, then you should make that clear. You could open with “It is impossible that God does not exist” and fly from there.
SimsulatedId Actually, no I deal with that here: ua-cam.com/video/ixqsZP7QP_o/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
Your linked videos talk about a ton of stuff that do not relate to our discussion. If I'm not undertanding something, please be specific.
If it is possible for God to exist and possible for God not to exist, then clearly you cannot conclude that God does exist without possibility that it doesn’t; that would violate your opening premise. Meanwhile, if it is impossible for God not to exist, which , I believe, is Anselmo’s case, then say so in premise one.
The real problem, as I pointed out, is that the MGB cannot really be mentioned without it existing. I’ve never truly discussed it, I assure you. For the sake of argument I accept it is logically coherent, but really, it is not possible to argue about its existence; to think it is for it to exist. You may discuss whose lawn to mow or first-born to sacrifice in its name, but there is no possibility for it not to exist since you either know about it and it does or you don’t and you’re not talking about it. For this reason, ‘it is possible that an MGB does or does not exist’ is simply not true. It is only possible for it to exist. Period. You say it, you believe it. Ner!
SimsulatedId I did deal with that in those videos and pointed out saying it is possible a MGB does not exist is equivalent to saying one is impossible, and you cannot derive impossibility from possibility alone. The only way a MGB cannot exist is to be impossible, so there a way a MGB can not exist.
The argument is deductively valid, and the soundness leads support from the evidence.
Julio Jerez is exactly correct: premise 1 is not established. It is an unsubstantiated assertion.
You have to start by defining the god you are claiming is possible. There are many thousands of different descriptions of god(s). Until you have defined the god we are discussing, you cannot even begin to explore weather or not that god might be possible.
The ontological argument fails on this point alone.
I do that is so many other videos. See my two newest ones for starters. And I have 3 other videos on the OA where I show specifics of the MGB.
***** No. I am quite familiar with the argument. It fails on all points. No need to go beyond premise 1 as it fails right there. Neither you, nor anyone else can refute the points I've made.
If you believe you can, then spell it out here, now.
1) Define your god.
2) Explain, do not simply assert how that god is possible.
biggbrattz facepalm* I did define God as a MGB. And I showed God is possible in "Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2)". Just saying your points are not refuted is not an argument, since i did in my videos.
Bob H How is that invalid? 3 follows from 1 and 2. The conclusion is in both premises and follows from these two premises.
Bob H However, if the premises are true then so is the conclusion. You can't accept all the premises and not the conclusion.
Great explanation! As a Muslim, I really appreciate a lot of work that Christian's like yourself and the greats in the past have done. I really wish Muslims and Christians can move past their hate and concentrate on real problems
Well, even if we do coexist peacefully, which I won't complain against, there are major theological differences that bar us from being one religion.
Never said we should be one religion. That's missing the point. We need to think of the greater context though: theism, monotheism specifically, is under attack
Agreed, though it was never actually clear to me that there was any hate, only what each side believed was best. For the most part when we hear about the crusades, particularly that of King Richard and Saladin, we're always led to assume this deep, ingrained blood feud where one is sworn to kill the other. The reality of course is that the relationship between these two men was that of profound fondness, respect and friendship. They just had a job to do that's all. Saladin, when responding to a letter that he received from Richard, wrote: _"If any man were to succeed in taking Jerusalem from me, I pray it will be you"_ . Saladin also sent Richard one of his own medics on the battlefield when Richard was cut from his horse. Why is this stuff not taught I wonder??
One real problem is religion. People divide into religious groups and discriminate, hate and kill as a result.
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma uf they try to debunk it by using science
I can save a lot of steps in this argument by dumping a few of the premises.
1) I define God to exist.
2) From 1, God exists.
No, it doesn't work like that. Existence is not a property and the A doesn't try to use it, so this is a straw man argument.
The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)
It gets even dumber than that.
1) If it is possible that God exists then God exists.😂
@@ramigilneas9274learn about modal logic
Try to imagine the greatest possible being. Now imagine a square circle. Now imagine the greatest possible integer. You have imagined all three incorrectly. You cannot imagine something that does not exist.
1. There is an infinite series of increasingly better possible worlds.
2. Whatever world God actually creates, he would have created a better one.
3. If God could have created a better world then he could have been morally better.
4. If God could have been morally better then he is not perfect and not worthy of worship.
5. Therefore God is not perfect and not worthy of worship.
1. Degree of goodness of creator reflected in degree of goodness of creation.
2. Unsurpassably good creator requires unsurpassably good creation.
According to the Ontological Argument, If you concede that this world is not the best, God is not the best. God could have done better so he is not perfect.
1. Mere existence is not efficient to describe God.
2. Our only descriptions of God are human.
3. Human descriptions of the divine are unacceptable.
4. God does not exist.
Your arguments are not logically coherent. The example you give at 3:01 is just a circle in a square.
Addressed mainly here: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 1)
6:52 "The only way for skeptics to debunk this argument is to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist."
The video claims that God is a maximally great being, and therefore has all qualities that are better to have, and therefore is 'necessary' because that is greater than 'contingent,' and necessary = exists.
1. A being that is not dependent on evil is better than a being that is dependent on evil.
2. God is dependent on evil.
3. God can not be maximally great.
God, in fact, belongs in the "impossible" category because it is impossible for a being to be "wholly good" and "partly evil." This is as impossible as a square circle.
To say that evil is necessary entails two beliefs: 1. The existence of free-willed beings is necessary to the existence of God. And 2. Evil is necessary to the existence of free-willed beings.
If either of these are untrue then God subjected sentient beings to evil and suffering unnecessarily. And it should be universally understood that to unnecessarily cause suffering and evil is per se an evil act. And for a being to commit an evil act it must be partially evil.
It should also be understood that if a being's existence is dependent on the existence of evil then it is partially evil. But we know that this is logically impossible.
So it should be clear that the existence of evil proves beyond any doubt that the existence of any maximally great being is an impossibility. It would either be dependent on evil (having a less-than-maximal quality), or it would be a logical impossibility (100% good and 13% evil, impossible, like a square circle.)
Impossibility of MGB shown, argument debunked, thank you, and good night.
God is not dependent of evil, because good is not dependent on evil: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 1)
***** Then explain why God had to create evil? There's no way out of this for you. Either God is dependent on evil or he created it unnecessarily. Checkmate.
cruelsuit1 He didn't, He created good and free creatures try to obtain good in the wrong way, that is what evil is. I explain it in that video.
***** No. There are only two possibilities. Either God chose to create evil or His existence is dependent on the existence of evil. Which is it?
cruelsuit1 That is a false dichotomy because the other option is privatio boni. And I already pointed this out: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 1)
In every moment, it is possible that such a maximally great being will manifest his/her/its greatness in the next moment, and that such a being would be greater than one who didn't, yet such a being that has been proven in the previous moment, using the ontological argument, is found to be disproven in the next. Since a maximally great being that persists through time is greater than one that doesn't, it cannot be said that the god that existed in the previous moment no longer exists in this moment. So we are left with a continuum of Gods that have been simultaneously proven and disproven, which violates the axiom of noncontradiction. Of course, the other option is that a maximally great being could or would not, in fact, manifest himself to me, but that would mean that there would be a place in time, space, and perception where his greatness does not exist, and thus such a god gets beat out by another possible being who does in the "greatest possible" hierarchy. Bottom line, this isn't remotely how the world actually works. I find it more likely that some problem with logic or language or intuitive confusion is producing these results.
That would imply a MGB is inside time, and therefore would be contingent on time and not MG. A MGB is necessary and beyond space-time.
***** MGB that only existed outside time would be less great than a being that existed both inside and outside time. Try again.
michaelsmith2911 If one exists outside of time then He would actualize all moments of time at once and would have activity in time in that sense, just from His perspective it would not be progressing through time, but from our perspective He would be in all time and all moments.
+InspiringPhilosophy That doesn't refute my first point OR my second. A maximally great being does manifest himself in the future, also progresses through time, and/or actualizes it. Except that he doesn't.
michaelsmith2911 That doesn't make any sense. God is manifested in all time. He doesn't need to progress through it. He actualizes past present and future at once.
So basically, all we need to do is to establish the fact that God is neceassary then all things will flow
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science,
Existence is not a property, necessity is. Necessity doesn't mean existence, which is why just defining God as necessary doesn't mean He exists. He has to be possible for the argument to work.
See my video, "Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (part 1). You cannot define a physical thing as MG.
I found it very humorous that you called the hosts of The Atheist Experience a "clever bunch." Great job, keep up the good work!
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN I think that the creation is best proof for God.
By the way, I loved 'man or rabbit'. Love your vids
Thanks :)
This argument is essentially saying “we’ve imagined something so great that it has to exist.” How is your imagination a “possible world?” It seems like there is a gap between conceivable and possible and I don’t see how this argument builds that bridge.
In other words, this looks like an equivocation fallacy to me, where “possible” means “possible to imagine” in one moment and “actually possible” in the next moment. Am I missing something here?
Bingo.
I will address Anselm's Ontological argument and Godel's Ontological argument.
Using the modal axioms below Anselm's ontological argument can be reduced to proving ◇p --> □p.
I.E; If you accept the model axioms below, then ◇p --> □p would be a theorem.
For a modal logic we need to add the connectives "necessary that" and "possibly that" in addition to the connectives in a predicate logic.
Let □ represent "necessary that" and ◇ represent "possibly that".
Using a predicate logic we can easily prove the "substitution rule" which states:
p V q
q --> r
--------
theterfore, p V r.
Using a truth table(which can be used in a predicate logic) you can show that
(~p --> q) V (p V q) is a tautology. I.E; the two statements are equivalent.
Call this tautology A: (~p --> q) (p V q).
Proof:
(1) p V q Given
(2) q --> r Given
(3) ~p --> q A (1)
(4) ~p --> r Chain Rule (3) and (2)
(5) p V r A (4)
QED.
Becker's Postulates:
(1) □p --> □□p
(2) ◇p --> □◇p
Axiom 1: ◇p
Axiom 2: p --> □p
modal modus ponens:
□(p --> q) --> (□p --> □q)
modal modus tollens:
(p --> q) --> (□~q --> □~p)
(*) ~□p --> ◇~p
(**) ◇p --> ~□~p
necessitation postulate: □p
Law of excluded middle:
□p V ◇~p
To prove :
◇p --> □p
(1) ◇p Axiom 1
(2) p --> □p Axiom 2
(3) ◇~p --> □◇~p Becker's postulate 2
(4) □p V ◇~p Law of excluded middle
(5) □p V □◇~p Substitution rule (3,4)
(6) ~□p --> ~p law of contrapositive (2)
(7) ◇~p --> ~p by * (6)
(8) □(◇~p --> ~p) necessitation postulate (7)
(9) □◇~p --> □~p modal modus ponens (9)
(10) □p V □~p substitution (5,9)
(11) ◇p --> ~□~p by **
(12) ~□~p modus ponens (11,1)
(13) □p Law of detachment (10,12)
The argument is clearly a valid argument, whether it's a sound valid argument I leave to others to debate on the Axioms above.
Now we have Anselm's argument by letting p - God exists.
Godel's Ontological Argument is worth looking in to.
An explanation of Godel's ontological proof.
Note: Using Godel's
ontological argument we will prove that ◇(∃x)Gx
and from this we will prove □(∃x)Gx.
Pos(F) states property F is positive.
Axiom 1 : Pos(F) --> □Pos(F)
Axiom 2: Pos(F) --> ~Pos(~F)
It's clear that Axiom 2 states if F is a positive property, then it's negation is not positive.
Axiom 3: Pos(F) --> [(F --> H) --> Pos(H)]
Axiom 3 just states that positive properties imply other positive properties.
def: A property F is said to be consistent if ◇(∃x)Fx is true and if property F is inconsistent then F --> ~F.
Theorem 1: Pos(F) --> ◇(∃x)Fx
Proof:
Let Pos(F) be true and suppose F is inconsistent, then F --> ~F and by
Axiom 3 Pos(F) --> [(F --> ~F) --> Pos(~F)] --> Pos(~F) is true --> ~Pos(~F) is false
which contradicts Axiom 2. Therefore, the assumption is false and the assertion
Pos(F) --> ◇(∃x)Fx is true.
Here we define what it means to be Godlike.
Let Gx stand for x is Godlike.
def 1:
Gx = df(F)[□Fx Pos(F)] is a tautology. I.E; The two statements are equivalent.
This states that every essential property of a godlike individual x is a positive property and every positive property of x is an essential property.
Note: This definition does not imply that a godlike individual has all positive properties.
It states that a godlike individual has those positive properties which are essential properties.
F ess x reads "F is an essence of x."
Next we define what it means for a property F to be a essence of an individual x.
def 2:
F ess x = df(H)[□Hx (F --> H)] is a tautology.
Next we define what it means for an individual x to exist necessarily.
Let NE(x) read "x necessarily exists".
def 3: NE(x) = df(F)[F ess x --> □(∃y)Fy].
Axiom 4: Pos(G).
Axiom 5: Pos(NE).
Corollary 1 : ◇(∃x)Gx
Proof:
By Axiom 4 Pos(G) and by Theorem 1 Pos(G) --> ◇(∃x)Gx
and by modal ponens --> ◇(∃x)Gx.
QED.
Theorem 2: Gx --> G Ess x.
Proof:
Assume Gx is true and let □Hx.
To show: □y(Gy --> Hy)
By (def 1 and Axiom 1) □Hx --> Pos(H) --> □Pos(H).
Referring to the Note above by def 1 we have: □[Pos(H) --> (y)(Gy --> Hy)]
and by modul modus ponens □Pos(H) --> □(y)(Gy --> Hy).
Now let Gx be true and G --> H.
Show □H.
By (Axiom 4) Pos(G) and by (Axiom 3) and (def 1) we have :
Pos(G) --> [G --> H) --> Pos(H)] --> □H.
Therefore Gx --> G Ess x.
Prove: □(∃x)Gx.
Prior to proving the above statement we need two theorems in modal logic.
Theorem A* : □(p --> q) --> [◇p --> ◇q].
Theorem A** : ◇□p --> □p.
Proof of □(∃x)Gx.
If Gx where true, then by (def 1) □Pos(G) and by (Axiom 4) Pos(NE) --> NE(x) is true and
by (Theorem 2) G ess x is true --> [(∃x)Gx --> □(∃x)Gx].
By necessitation axiom above □[(∃y)Fy --> □(∃y)Fy] and Theorem A* -->
◇(∃x)Gx --> ◇□(∃x)Gx and by Corollary 1 ◇(∃x)Gx which by A** --> □(∃x)Gx.
QED
Using an ordinary MacBook computer, Godel's proof was shown to be correct, at least on a mathematical level, using a higher modal logic.
I find it amazing that Godel's argument can be proven automatically in a few seconds or even less on a standard notebook.
The equations all add up.
If there are other things that use similar logic it may be possible to develop computer systems to check each single step of a proof to make certain they are correct.
Note:
Godel axiomatized the notion of a "positive property and thereby assumes we can single out positive properties from the set of all properties.
He defines a positive property rather vaguely: Positive means "positive in the moral aesthetic sense" (independently of the accidental structure of the world).
If one is to accept the premise that God's existence is necessary, wouldn't logically proving otherwise be impossible? Whats the point of using logic here if the definitions already conclude the question being asked i.e. does God exist? You're using definitions that already assert God"s existence and definitions can't prove anything in and of themselves.
The logic and premises indeed don't add up, but defining God as necessary neither _makes it so_ nor make the logic of the argument sound. It's like fixing the premise "The Harry Potter franchise stars Donald Trump" with the assertion "Harry Potter is a franchise that has to star Donald Trump" AND THEN proceeding to make an argument, however illogical, that Donald Trump was in Harry Potter. The definition/assertion plugged into the premise concludes the argument being made regardless of sound logic.
No one defined a MGB as already existing. A MGB would include necessity. Meaning one is possible or impossible. If possible the argument simply follows.
You've lost me here. How can something (by definition) include necessity to *all possible worlds* yet possibly _not_ exist??
Thanks for responding btw. I appreciate the time given here.
Because you can be defined as necessary and still be impossible. I could define a tree as necessary, but such a concept would be impossible, since physical things cannot be necessary.
Hold on let's back up here. Didn't you say in the video that God is a necessary entity _in addition to_ defining a necessary entity as "something that cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world"? My issue isn't in these assertions themselves (we are free define things however we want regardless of what facts are known or yet to be discovered) but rather when you use this *"necessary to all possible worlds" entity in the context of a logically argument to prove it's existence.* The definitions used _in the context of the argument_ already have the answer regardless of the premises. This makes the argument redundant and akin to begging the question.
Fantastic introduction to this argument. Thanks for doing this video.
So in summary: A MGB must have the property of existing in all worlds because that is required of a MGB?
No, existence is not a property.
***** "existence is not a property" why?
Cameron Martin You must first exist before you can have properties. If there is something, it exists already, and then it has properties.
***** A thing can exist hypothetically without having the property of non-hypothetical existence or "in the mind" as Anselm put it.
Cameron Martin Then it still exists as a concept. Kant pointed this out.
It is not true that squares exist in "any possible world". If you define a square as a polygon with 4 equal length sides which meet at right angles, then one need no further than hyperbolic geometry, where the angles of all quadrilaterals add up to less than 360 degrees, to find a geometry where squares don't exist. If you instead define a square to be a closed polygon where the sides meet at right angles, then hyperbolic geometry has squares with 3 sides, but none with 4 sides. In fact, squares don't even really exist in our would, given that space everywhere is curved by matter. In general concepts like squares and circles and numbers don't exist in any physical way. You can't show me the number 2. It is an abstract idea, with different properties depending on the mathematical system being discussed. For instance in modulus 4 arithmetic we have 2+2+2=1 instead of 2+2+2=6. So your video really fails to give an example of any physically existing "Necessary Entities".
At the end of the day there are two types of beliefs that are contradictory. The new news maybe is: if you believe God is possible, then it follows, you must believe God exists (I'll take that on faith for the logic cited). It also seems that if you are an atheist (with principles), you must necessarily believe something like this is valid:
1) It is possible that it is impossible for God to exist.
2) If it is possible that it is impossible for God to exist, then it is possible God doesn't exist in any possible world.
3) If it is possible God doesn't exist in any possible world, then it is possible atheism is true [skipped some steps, but they're obvious].
It doesn't seem like much has changed really. Neither side can prove their premise 1), so until further notice, I'm taking these proofs to say more about the logical "trajectory" of our beliefs, given something specific is true, rather than anything definitive about God.
Theists are desperately trying to define god into existence. Due to empirical observation yielding a deafening silence of gods works.
@@isidoreaerys8745 "Ah yes let me just observe and experiment on this TIMELESS and SPACELESS being that is outside the bounds science was meant to work on."
@@YellowScar2014 saying god is nowhere to be found in space or time is just another way of saying god doesn’t exist.
@@isidoreaerys8745 Ever heard of a little thing called math? Reason? and sort of information?
Thank you very much for you explanation. It was much clearer than many presentations of the Ontological Argument. Keep up the good work.
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma uf they try to debunk it by using science
You do present the concept in a straight-forward manner that makes it easier to understand. Maybe I'm still missing something, but the argument still seems to boil down to defining God into existence. You talk about a maximally great being that is necessary, but it seems the argument poses that he is necessary only because if he were not he wouldn't be maximally great.
Is God maximally great? Well, no: he lied to Adam about the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit, he falls to fits of rage on a frequent basis, and he makes decisions that do not seem to result in the ultimate desired outcome (flooding the earth to eliminate wickedness, for instance). All of this seems to be ignored in favor of pointing and claiming even louder, "But he's maximally great AND necessary!"
As far as I understand it, the only thing in reality that is necessary is the state of existence. So if god exists, he only does so by the grace of existence itself. And existence does not require God in order to operate. So God isn't necessary, he isn't maximally great - the only thing you've got left is that he might exist. I never took any courses in philosophy or formal logic, so maybe there's some underpinning of process that I've missed here. But the entire argument seems to be built on making the premises so difficult to comprehend "properly" that you can sneak in the conclusion that God exists because you've defined it that way.
Well that is the definition and a definition doesn't entail actual existence alone, a necessary being must be logically coherent and metaphysically possible.
God did not lie to Adam, Clement of Alexandria tells us the fruit caused spiritual death, and anger is not a sin. It is good to be angry with evil. Also, Hebrew scholars will tell us ancient Jews considered God equal to existence, God is existence and we just participate in that: www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/433240/jewish/God.htm
***** Hmmm...
"God did not lie to Adam." So God has a communication problem is what you're saying? It doesn't say he told Adam that he would die a spiritual death, he told him he would die, and he would die "that same day." Personally, I don't buy the myth as an actual event, but if you're going to stick to the letter of the word, then please stop making excuses. God led Adam to believe something that was not true. He was being deceitful. (It wouldn't be the last time.)
"anger is not a sin" You're right. Anger is not a sin. It is a flaw. And from your video, a maximally great being is free of flaws.
"ancient Jews considered God equal to existence." Well, they were wrong then, weren't they. These things are not synonymous. So it really doesn't matter what the ancient Jews thought; we know better.
Now: "a necessary being must be logically coherent and metaphysically possible." Is a god that behaves as he is presented in the Bible logically coherent? Is a god that hides his true existence from mere mortals logically coherent? Is a god that is maximally great, yet leaves no trace of evidence in his wake logically coherent? And what does "metaphysically possible" mean? Beyond the physical. Which is what exactly? This is where the idea starts detaching from reality. The ontological argument posits that God exists merely because you think he does. But then it inserts qualifiers and logic that seems too deep to superficially dismiss.
I'd like to think I comprehend things fairly well enough. And I have no problem in pondering deeply, but you abandon real world aspects in this argument and try to embed a contradictory notion of existence beyond existence. If it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, and it acts like a duck, it's probably a duck. But if it looks nothing like a duck, sounds nothing like a duck, and acts nothing like a duck, where do you get off telling me it's a metaphysical duck?
The ontological argument seems to be an excuse to continue to believe in something that you never believed in because of the ontological argument in the first place. I say that because I'm sure this is not the argument that brought you to God. If I'm wrong, do tell; I'd really like to know what's so compelling about this argument. As it stands, I do not see merit in it at all.
Ironoclasty The Bible uses death for spiritual death and physical death interchangeably (Ezekiel 18:20; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13). We need to read context to know which one.
"Anger is not a sin. It is a flaw."
- No it is not... It is not wrong or a flaw if it is directed properly.
"Well, they were wrong then, weren't they. These things are not synonymous."
- If you are going to be ad hoc, then it is pointless to reason with you. We define God differently than you...
" Is a god that behaves as he is presented in the Bible logically coherent?"
- Sigh* ua-cam.com/video/1C3q3Zr_R8E/v-deo.html
"And what does "metaphysically possible" mean? "
- ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
"The ontological argument posits that God exists merely because you think he does."
- Obviously not, if we have to argue from metaphysical possibility...
First of all, thanks for the links (the puns were awesome :) ). Second, the exasperation you showed in your last post makes it clear that you are familiar with the objections that I have posed, so much so that you have embedded responses within your previous works. Considering the nature of the material, that's probably the best method of responding. Lastly, it's also clear that you and I are speaking in different circles. I am not a formally trained student of logical debate and philosophy, as I have stated. So it is apparent that neither of us are speaking directly to one another on these points. With that in mind:
"We need to read context to know which one." The Genesis account, as I noted earlier, is a gnostic parable as far as I'm concerned. As such, there is no proper context as an actual event, so this is not a point worth pursuing.
"It is not wrong or a flaw if it is directed properly." For a divine being of maximal greatness, anger most certainly is a flaw. 1) Supposedly, God chose to create this universe in the way that he did as opposed to any other kind of universe he could have created. 2) In doing so, he knew what he was getting into, having omniscience. 3) As this is what he picked, he's got no reason to complain, be upset, or exhibit anger unless his character has some deficiency (like, say, loving the smell of burning flesh, for instance).
"If you are going to be ad hoc, then it is pointless to reason with you. We define God differently than you..." Ad hoc? So, if I reasonably point out that those two words: God and Existence, do not mean the same thing, I'm wrong? I have committed an Ad Hoc fallacy by stating that the words are not interchangeable? Are you frickin kidding me? Or have I taken that out of context as well? Are you saying that, not only do you define God to exist, but you also define God to be existence? And you can't reason with ME?How vapidly offensive of you. If you cannot reason with me, it is not because I am unreasonable.
The hour-long video about God being perceived as a moral monster had all of a couple of seconds relating to my position and did not address my concern (God's behavior, not justifications for God being harsh). The other only presented the idea that metaphysical possibility presents an additional qualifier that cannot itself be quantified (since you can also redefine "meta-physicality" as you see fit), giving the argument the perception of validity.
To sum up your last post, as I see it: I'm "wrong" because you've defined me to be wrong; the same way you defined God to exist (oh, and God AS existence, also, yes). Apparently you do indeed define God differently than I do. Well, now I see that you are absolutely correct. God does exist! (At least, there appear to be no alternative answers left by your definitions.) Well done.
Ironoclasty "The Genesis account, as I noted earlier, is a gnostic parable as far as I'm concerned. "
- That doesn't make any sense because the Genesis account was written thousands of years before gnostics appeared. It is jewish poetry.
"As this is what he picked, he's got no reason to complain, be upset, or exhibit anger unless his character has some deficiency"
- He has every right to be angry at sin, by your logic, filmmakers could not write any movies with an antagonist who is defeated by the good. Allowing for evil, doesn't mean God likes it and doesn't want to see it defeated.
"God and Existence, do not mean the same thing, I'm wrong?"
- Again, all you have done is defined them differently therefore everyone has to accept your terms, That is not how this works... Your opponent has a right to have a different belief and definition...
"God's behavior, not justifications for God being harsh"
- Again, God has a right to be angry with sin.
" (since you can also redefine "meta-physicality" as you see fit), giving the argument the perception of validity."
- No, that comes from Sual Kripke... Metaphysical possibility is based off a posteriori reasoning.
I have heard the argument as well as follows from James Cutsinger:
1 - God is "That-Than-Which-Nothing-Greater-Can-Be-Thought".
2 - That-Than-Which-Nothing-Greater-Can-Be-Thought can be thought.
3 - That which can be thought exists in the mind.
4 - That which exists in the mind either exists in the mind alone, or also exists in reality.
5 - To exist in reality is greater than to exist in the mind alone.
6 - That-Than-Which-Nothing-Greater-Can-Be-Thought cannot exist in the mind alone.
7 - That-Than-Which-Nothing-Greater-Can-Be-Thought must exist in reality.
8 - Therefore God must exist.
The greatest evidence of God is every living thing. No unguided natural thing can ever make any directed part of any living thing so your Maker is supernatural. It's observable that you exit. It's observable that you were made by a preexisting written set of directives that no material thing is able to significantly sequence so you have a supernatural Maker that also made programmable matter and programmed matter to work inside of you. Your diminishing perfection proves two things. It proves there is perfection and that you are losing it. No unguided physical thing is able to achieve any level of perfection. We happen to be falling from perfection all the time in every way physically speaking. You can't fall from a level of perfection that did not previously exist and no physical thing is ever able to attain any level of perfection.
Honestly, this argument, out of all of the other arguments out there for God, has convinced me the most.
Dylan Johnson This argument is flawed, circular, and pointless. Please re-evaluate your world view if this was what convinced you.
@@tylerduncanson2661 Nice rebuttal
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science
Absolutely brilliant Plantinga. I went to school to eat my lunch, and still studied Plantinga and a few other greats like Adolf Schlatter.
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science
How did you determine what was a Great Making Property and what was a Lesser Making Property? How did you determine that Existence is greater than Nonexistence? What if we got it backwards and Nonexistence is greater than Existence? Would that mean that a maximally great being necessarily doesn't exist in every possible world?
Well existence is not a property so it doesn't apply to the Modal OA. And GMP is just a title for properties that are ontologically beneficial.
There's no such thing as a "Maximally Great Being" just like there's no such thing as a "Maximally Great Integer." Regardless of how "Great" you conceive your being to be I can conceive of one that can beat your being up or is prettier or smarter or wittier..
There's no such thing as "Absolute Truth" either. Truth is an attribute we assign to a premise. A premise can be "true" or "false." Saying "Absolute Truth" is like saying "Absolute Shortness."
Why do shape definitions have to exist and why do numbers have to exist? These things only exist because of human consciousness. They are a method of categorization. They would not be necessary in a world without consciousness.
Besides, saying that being Necessary is better than being Contingent is essentially the same thing as saying Existence is better than Non-existence which is why the original Ontological Argument failed.
The argument boils down to "It's possible that God exists therefore God exists" which is a non-sequitur.
By the way, who says it's possible that God exists? It depends upon your definition of God. If your definition includes that God is both a square and a circle then that God is impossible and exists in no possible worlds.
Valicroix "here's no such thing as a "Maximally Great Being" just like there's no such thing as a "Maximally Great Integer." Regardless of how "Great" you conceive your being to be I can conceive of one that can beat your being up or is prettier or smarter or wittier.."
-Then the bing to conceive is the MGB. It is not about degrees of MGGB, but one who is above all else. Just saying you can think of another doesn't affect the argument, because you just posit a MGB.
"There's no such thing as "Absolute Truth" either."
- Also, is it absolutely true there is no absolute truth?
"Why do shape definitions have to exist and why do numbers have to exist? These things only exist because of human consciousness. They are a method of categorization. "
- So before any human existed the number 2 did not exist? Is that really what you are saying? Did the law of physics not apply? You're confusing it's epistemic status with its ontologically status.
"Besides, saying that being Necessary is better than being Contingent is essentially the same thing as saying Existence is better than Non-existence which is why the original Ontological Argument failed."
- No, necessity and contingency are not defined as existence and non-existence. so trying to equate them doesn't work. This objection doesn't make sense because words are not defined as you please
"By the way, who says it's possible that God exists? It depends upon your definition of God. "
See: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html I defined a MGB in this video. Just saying other definition are incoherent is meaningless here. why would you eve bring that up?
***** You can't just "posit" something into existence. That's the whole problem with this argument. You're essentially trying to define something into being and reality doesn't work that way. You especially cannot "posit" something that is impossible and a MGB is impossible. I might as well posit a Golden Unicorn as a Maximally Great Animal (MGA) and then follow your exact line of reasoning to demonstrate that a Golden Unicorn exists. Any difference you can try to claim between your MGB and my MGA would be special pleading.
"So before any human existed the number 2 did not exist?" True statement. The number 2 is a mathematical construct that represents a quantity in our reality. Quantities and the "Laws of Physics" are not necessarily the same in all "possible" worlds. Possible covers a lot of ground. We live in a reality where Imaginary Numbers exist so why can't there be a reality where Real Numbers do not exist?
"Also, is it absolutely true there is no absolute truth?"
No, it is TRUE that there is no absolute truth or, more accurately, the term "absolute truth" makes no sense. True or False is an attribute assigned to a proposition just like new or old. What is "absolute new?"
I bring the "who says it's possible that God exists" up because that's the 1st Premise in your simplified version of the argument.
Valicroix "You're essentially trying to define something into being and reality doesn't work that way."
- No, because no one saying God exists from the definition of a MGB alone, but one has to demonstrate metaphysical possibility. So it is not defining something into existence, since metaphysical possibility must be demonstrated.
" I might as well posit a Golden Unicorn as a Maximally Great Animal"
- I address that in this video, it is not as easy as you think: ua-cam.com/video/ixqsZP7QP_o/v-deo.html
"The number 2 is a mathematical construct that represents a quantity in our reality."
- no, the term is. The semantics did not exist, but what the term represented was true. Again, this is confusing there epistemic status or 2 and the ontological status.
"Possible covers a lot of ground. We live in a reality where Imaginary Numbers exist so why can't there be a reality where Real Numbers do not exist?"
- Because it is impossible. As philosopher Thomas Nagel says, "..in skepticism about logic, we can never reach a point at which we have two possibilities with which all the "evidence" is compatible and between which it is therefore impossible to choose. The forms of thought that must be used in any attempt to set up such an alternative force themselves to the top of the heap. I cannot think, for example, that i would be in an epistemically identical situation if 2+2 equaled 5 but my brains were being scrambled-because I cannot conceive of 2 +2 being equal to 5. The epistemological skeptic relies on reason to get us to a neutral point above the level of thoughts that are the object of skepticism. The logical skeptic can offer no such external platform."
"No, it is TRUE that there is no absolute truth or, more accurately, the term "absolute truth" makes no sense."
- You have refuted yourself. Then there is absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. You can't have it both ways. Either there is absolute truth, or you cannot say there is no truth, which is an absolute claim. As Nagel says, "Claims to the effect that a type of judgement expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent: They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgements which places them in an unconditional context. The judgement of relativity or conditionally cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself. To put it schematically, the claim "Everything is subjective" must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim, including the claim that it is objectively false."
***** I never said there is no truth. I said in order to determine truth you must state a proposition. True or false is conditional based upon the proposition and circumstances. For instance, is the expression 1+1=2 true? The answer is that it's conditional based upon the base number system that you're using. Sometimes 1+1=10.
Nagel is talking about the ACTUAL WORLD which is by definition singular in nature. Model Logic operates with a set of possible worlds and the "evidence" can be different in different worlds which is why not everything is true in all possible worlds. For instance, there are non-Euclidean geometries which are just as sound and consistent as Euclidean geometry but in which the sum of the angles of a triangle are less than 180 degrees and greater than 180 degrees respectively. So different possible worlds may have different geometries.
If one posits an infinite number of possible worlds then all things may be possible that are not logical contradictions. To say "no real numbers exist" is not a logical contradiction. It's false in our world but it might be true in some other world.
Who said anything about "everything is subjective?"
I watched your video on Maximally Great Beings. How is your idea of a Maximally Great Being different from a Maximally Great Animal, a Maximally Great Insect or a Maximally Great Muffin?
The problem is making the leap from a system of mathematics into the actual world.
You cannot articulate a Maximally Great Anything because someone can always come up something that is Greater. If you simply assume that this is not an infinite progression but ends at some unidentified entity that is a Maximally Great Something (Being, Animal, Insect, Muffin etc.) then your entire argument reduces to "Assume God Exists therefore God exists."
Let's consider something from your MGB Video. Plantinga actually states that "A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W."
Yet you state that omnipotent does not mean the ability to do everything but simply means "almighty in power." Well, regardless of how "almighty in power" you come up with I can come up with a being equal in all other ways but mightier because he can beat your guy up.
So one cannot define a being that has "maximal excellence" since "maximal" by definition means the highest or greatest possible.
Even Plantinga acknowledges that a rational person could reject his premise that there is a being with Maximal Greatness. In "The Nature of Necessity" he said “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion."
But "rational to accept" is a long, long way from proven to be true.
You cannot DEFINE something into existence. You cannot assume that's it's possible for something to exist and then make the leap into it exists in reality. In order to do that you need empirical evidence to back that claim up.
Valicroix "I never said there is no truth."
- Yes you did, "There's no such thing as "Absolute Truth" either. "
"The answer is that it's conditional based upon the base number system that you're using. Sometimes 1+1=10."
- Therefore is it built of facts, not subjective opinions. It is impossible for you to argue and not state absolutes.
"Nagel is talking about the ACTUAL WORLD which is by definition singular in nature. "
- No, he is not, because I read his book. He is pointing out relativism and subjectivism is incoherent. Logic is true in all possible worlds, and cannot be escaped.
"To say "no real numbers exist" is not a logical contradiction. It's false in our world but it might be true in some other world."
- Again, Nagel challenges that by asking you to convince of a world where 2+2 doesn't 5. It is impossible because logic is universally binding.
"I watched your video on Maximally Great Beings. How is your idea of a Maximally Great Being different from a Maximally Great Animal, a Maximally Great Insect or a Maximally Great Muffin?"
- I doubt you watched it, because I pointed out physical things cannot be MG.
"You cannot articulate a Maximally Great Anything because someone can always come up something that is Greater. "
- no, because that is like saying there is a 1st place higher than actual 1st place. It is incoherent and meaningless. Just saying you posit a greater being, makes that the MGB. The OA doesn't change since it doesn't specific a specific, just a MGB.
"But "rational to accept" is a long, long way from proven to be true."
- Yeah... No one ever claimed we were proving God exists. I eve go over this quote in this video: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
Nothing Plantinga says I disagree with.
Plus, I did not assume a MGB is possible. In that video i point out we have demonstrated metaphysical possibility.
Thanks, very useful for my AS Philosophy studies :)
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science
2:28 And yet these days she can very well say "I feel like a man. Therefore it's true and don't misgender me!"
@Tom Broome found the liberal.
Bro got me hooked when he said, “it is impossible to refute”
Wouldn't a god who holds the record for eating the most dirt be more great than one who does not hold that record?
Atheist Philosopher "The maximal excellence attributes are empty and have no cognitive meaning. An MGB (god) cannot eat dirt or ride a bicycle. An MGB cannot know who, what, when or where someone is eating dirt or riding a bike."
I find these statements incoherent. Why could an MGB not ride a bike or know when someone is? Surely, He can take any form He wishes.
"MGB cannot have moral perfections when there is killings by divine commands."
God may have morally sufficient reasons for issuing these commands. God has a higher priority than simply preserving life. Perhaps His actions were to achieve an overarching goal (i.e. salvation of humanity).
+James Cobau The simple answer is no. Someone who has the world record for eating the most dirt is a dummy. Substitute the word 'god' with 'human' and then get two humans to have a dirt eating contest to see who is greater. The truly greater of the two would offer to let the other go first.
@@joaquinbocosta An omnipotent being would be able to achieve ANY "higher goal" without suffering, otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent...
So, I can logically conclude: Since there is suffering in the world, a maximally great, _benevolent _*_and_*_ omnipotent_ being cannot exist.
@@lukidurer28 That depends on how you define suffering, and on wether all possible examples of said suffering truly are bad.
As an example, pain, in and of itself, is not bad, as without a sense of pain we would accidentally injure or kill ourselves regularly.
You would drink boiling water (say, for tea), not knowing it was killing you until you were already dead, or had lost your voice.
@@Menzobarrenza The problem with this is that God is still supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or at least defined that way in this argument. So he is the ultimate rulemaker of everything.
That being said, if god wanted so, people could also learn to avoide things that are bad for themselves without suffering pain. You can't say that would "go against our nature" because our nature is supposed to be set exactly by God.
Anything that implies pain for any reason could be avoidable if there was an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
Proof that God does not exist:
1. if it is possible that God exists, then he certainly does exist - as proven by Alvin Plantinga
2. it is possible that God does not exist
3. therefore, because of clause 1 above, it is not possible that God exists
Wherever mentioned, "God" may be interchanged with "Maximally Great Being".
I addressed that: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
Basically, yes.
It's not rocket science.
Excelente video!
This is one argument that i still do not fully understand very well, but this video help a lot. Thanks
This is a terrible video, that has already been refuted. It is full of logical fallacies, and the maker is lying to you. The only reason you like it is because it suits your preexisting indoctrination. This video is basically just I can imagine a farting unicorn that is necessary to exist, therefor it does exist...
@@jonneexplorer Then you didn’t watch the video because the joke you were making does it make any sense and we’re not even fit the video also who was refuted it it’s still a very talked about Debate. Also he uses the unicorn as a joke so either you do not understand the video or you simply do not watch it. I myself acknowledge that this is not a good argument for God‘s existence but the call bad or a fallacy or terrible video it’s just an absolute lie.
@@jonneexplorer you do understand that saying that the necessary being is an unicorn doesn't actually prove the argument is wrong. You're just picturing the being in a bad way and saying "haha looks bad". That's not a counter argument.
Alvin Plantinga is nothing more than a cultural imperialist bigot.
All your ancestors who were forced to convert to this INANE cult by knife/gun point would be ashamed to see you reproducing this tribalistic Ugga bugga Hebrew nonsense.
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma uf they try to debunk it by using science
This is not Gödel's argument, but based on Plantinga's argument which uses necessity. So this is a bait and switch.
Physical beings cannot be necessary as I point out in my other video, they are contingent on contingent substances like matter.
Wow, way to butcher centuries of philosophy on metaphysics. Plus, you need to define what you mean by "objective". The existence of God is not a subjective claim, yes.
Of course it’s subjective. Until proven and accepted it’s subjective
I'm confused. This makes perfect sense. It's simplified so I know some of the parts are being left out that would make it harder to understand but it lines up perfectly in my head. Everyone is saying it's confusing so I don't know if I understand it truly or I'm completely off base.
I find that the modal ontological argument is a bit like a riddle. When you don't know the answer to a riddle it can seem very hard to figure it out, bit when you are told the answer, it becomes almost obvious and you wonder how you ever missed it.
Likewise, the modal ontological argument is only confusing when you don't understand it, but when you do come to understand it, it becomes almost obvious and you wonder how you ever missed it.
This is probably why other people are saying it is confusing and hard to understand whilst you think it is straightforward and obvious.
The Ontological Argument always made the least sense to me. Now I actually find it to be the most convincing lol. Your videos are amazing.
I agree. I still don’t know if it’s the most convincing because there’s some other very convincing ones, but this one’s definitely my favorite now either way.
@@cosmicnomad8575 I think the best way to view the modal ontological argument isn't to look at it as a stand alone argument that is used in isolation, but rather, to look at it as an "over arching" argument. That is to say, it sets the landscape in which the whole discussion of God's existence takes place.
So you can, for example, present a bunch of different arguments for God's existence, and then afterwards you can present the modal ontological argument and show that if it is even possible that God exists, then it follows that God exists.
Thus, the cumulative weight of all of the arguments for God's existence that you have presented so far in your conversation only need to show that God's existence is possible.
0:45 "impossible to refute", I am sure that for an argument to be valid it must be able to be false.
4:20 "maximally great being... great making properties" all of these are do not add up to anything in reality. I can not give one love, for one wisdom. I can not give one power, for one love. So if I may ask what is your definition of a maximally great being?
It seems strange because we don't have anything else that is maximally great.
No.. Most arguments are valid, the question is if they are sound.
The term maximal greatness and GMP are just titles for properties that are ontologically beneficial in all possible worlds.
Explain to me what maximal greatness?
Ark Builder Well, basically what I said in the video: entailing all GMP (which are properties that are ontologically beneficial in all possible worlds).
do you have an example of this...
I can make up definitions all day as well.
Ark Builder Power, intelligence, necessity, and moral perfection.
As premise #1 is wrong, the whole thing is wrong.
It is possible for god to exist unless his nature contradicts himself
Sorry buddy, but just because you won't accept how ridiculously bad the argument is, doesn't mean other people didn't understand it. It's one big begging the question fallacy. You flat out, even proudly, admitted to the fallacy, because YOU don't understand the problem: you define a god as _having to exist_ (necessary) and then end up with your god having to exist. Not only that, but you talk down on people because maybe they don't know you defined it as such _which is another flaw:_ you didn't define the term but fully rely on the definition making it work (while the definition IS the fallacy). So not only do you have a circular argument where none of the steps matter because you flat out start by defining that the conclusion of the argument is true (which again is the begging the question fallacy) but then you don't even make that part of the argument, and then you talk down on people for _still_ recognizing your circular reasoning.
Also, nice showmanship of the infamous apologist dishonesty. In the video of the atheist experience he _clearly_ says that his definition of a unicorn is that it MUST exist, so it's NOT CONTINGENT in contrast to your obvious and demonstrable lie. FFS man, you show people the video that proves you are lying about the video... how stupid are you?
@@spennythespoo Catching this guy out?
Bruh he’s not defining God into existence, he’s saying IF God exists he exists necessarily
I don’t think your last part works on the premise of why is the unicorn necessary. If it’s necessary because it has the attributes of an all powerful being then the relevance of it being a unicorn drops and no longer matters as the unicorn is a chosen form or irrelevant to its ability’s purpose or intent.
Great introduction to Plantinga's Ontological argument! Thanks IP!
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science
I don’t think it’s _impossible_ to refute.
1. By definition, if God exists, then the proposition "God does not exist" is self-contradictory.
2. The proposition, "God does not exist" is not self-contradictory.
3. Therefore, by definition, God does not exist.
You're joking, right? By definition, if an orange exists, the proposition "an orange is the color orange" is self contradictory.
2 the proposition "an orange is not the color orange" is not self contradictory.
3 therefore, by definition, an orange does not exist
I use the toddler argument. If a Toddler asks you how did we get here? You tell them God. Toddler says Ok. If you tell them any other answer the Toddler gets confused. The earliest mind can grasp God, and yet the most intelligent of minds in this world struggle with it. Its Gods method to keep man humble.
1 Corinthians 1:19-21 KJV
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
That argument only proves that children would believe in a fictitious diety
@@batman-sr2px The simplicity of God has a ring of truth in it.
I like how the video showed the problem with the argument, defining a unicorn as a horse with a horn THAT EXISTS and why that doesn't prove existence. I am disappointed someone who saw that wouldn't see how defining god as "necessary to exist" is the Exact Same Thing. One could definite super-unicorns as the best kind of unicorn that necessarily exists and get the same argument. "Existence" isn't a property you get to ascribe as part of the definition.
Hardly... asking is a MGB necessary is the same as asking if red is red... If a mGB wasn't necessary it would be another contingent being, and not be MG. Also, I addressed MG unicorns here: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 1)
Never said existence is a property, that is a straw man.
*****
And yet, red things exist or don't exist. Even though a red object would be defined as a red thing that exists, that definition doesn't bring red objects into existence. You have to demonstrate that.
Even if a "Maximally great being" can be defined as something that requires existence to avoid being self-contradictory, that doesn't add any evidence as to the thing's existence in our reality.
Existence as an attribute, quality, or characteristic of something's definition does not in any way necessitate it's existence in any possible reality.
Suzina And where did I say definitions alone entail existence? They obviously have to rely on metaphysical possibility, which I demonstrate here: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2)
No where in the definition does a MGB require existence... That is it fallaciously equivocate necessity and existence... You should stop taking your cues from AnticitizenX who clearly has never read anything on necessity... Existence is not an attribute or a property, as Kant clearly demonstrated and to assume necessity is existence is absurd...
***** Great!
"No where in the definition does a MGB require existence... " Now that we can agree to discount where this video states at 4:15 that existence (specifically you say necessary existence) is required by the definition, we can agree that premise 3 is false.
Either necessary existence is required by a "maximally great being" or premise 3 "Maximally Great Beings necessarily exist in all possible worlds" is false.
(Not sure who AnticitizenX is, but arguments stand or fall based on their logic, not the author, so I don't care too much what he/she said)
Suzina Huh? That is necessity, not existence... The definition of ontological necessity does not mean existence by definition, it means "cannot fail to exist if possible." It is a way for something to exist, not existence by definition. In other words, it describes a type of existence like something can exist contingently. Have you ever read anything on necessity like, "Naming and Necessity" or "The Nature of Necessity"?
Necessity doesn't equal existence....
To sum it up:
"it is possible that a maximally great being (m.g.b. of g.o.d.) exists
therefor it exists.."
That is just a linguistic trick to define god into being... who is to say what this 'maximally' entails?
You just define it as good? how is that implied? what counts as maximally good?
"it is possible for the maximally round thing to exist... there for it does..'"
...there is your prove perfect spheres exists! now bring me one...
Nope: The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)
GMPs are properties that are ontologically beneficial in all possible worlds.
Rounds things do not entail necessity. That should be obvious....
*****
You list these GMproperties that you'd like it to have: good, powerfull, nessecary, a being, ....
Who came up with those? i'll agree that those seem 'great things', but you still are just attributing things to the vague term 'great' without demonstrating them.
The trickiest one is 'neccesary'.
This holds the premise that it is logically possible for 'beings' to be nessecary... (just like omnipotence only works inside the logically possible)
All this argument does is state it is possible for something to necessarily exist, and then throw in all other atrributes you'd like with that.
You need to demonstrate that
a) necessary existence is possible
b) all other atributes are related to this 'existing' (incl it being 'a being')
I'll rephrase the example :
P1 'It is possible for 'a glob' to exist.
We define a glob as a 'maximally perfect material thing'..
where 'maximally perfect' entails all qualities such as "roundness, necessary existence, frictionlessness, silentness, and opaqueness..."
Conclusion: a glob, 'a perfect round, opague, ... material thing', exists
P.G. Burgess Pretty much that is the philosophical definition going back to St Augustine....
These properties are GMPs because it is pretty obvious and intuitive. If there is a reason to doubt they are ontologically beneficial then someone needs to prove one. Why wouldn't necessity be possible. I even explained why it is a posteriori: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
The other properties follow because a MGB entails all GMPs by definition...
Roundness is not a GMP because being round means one must be physical and be bound by the laws of space-time and matter.
"GMPs are properties that are ontologically beneficial in all possible worlds."
-being eternal in a unchanging, everlasting world seems not benificial
-being 'good' might not be benificial in a cruel world
these are not 'obvious' in all worlds.. perhaps in this one.
Even more.. those gmp's are non-related and therefor not necessarily combined in 'one being'. If 'a posteriori' ' is a good staring point for you... it seems one could be more powerfull if one is less good. (or better but less powerfull). therefor the gmp's do not lead to one mgb with godlike properties (where they are required to be both maximal)
There is still no link between your gmp's and your 'necessacity'.
The leibniz argument is not realy 'accepted' science ... and the whole argument stands or falls on it... so at least it should be mentioned as a premise in the onthological argument.
P.G. Burgess So it is better to exist continently where you are dependent and can fail to exist instead of being self-sustaining? IN what possible world is that ontologically beneficial?
Moral perfection means lacking vices. a morally perfect being would triumph in a cruel world because nothing could bring Him Down.
Power is not contingent on evil in any way...
The link is a being that entails all GMPs... And just being ad hoc with the LCA isn't an argument...
At 4:56 - By saying that "God (Maximally Great Being) = Necessity" , you are defining God into existence. So the argument presented is already inherently circular.
Sam O Necessity doesn't entail existence. One has to be necessary and metaphysically possible. So a MGB is not defined into existence because the definition alone doesn't tell us if it is possible or not.
Are saying that it is possible to argue or reason a MGB into existence?
Sam O Didn't say that.
In which case, the modal ontological argument presented is irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of God.
Sam O That is a setting up a straw man and knocking it over. God is not reasoned into existence, but is shown through reasoning it is the logical conclusion.
You can't just phrase questions to assume a certain view of logic.
I am an atheist. Someone proposed this argument and I couldn't understand it. You are easy to understand. Thank you for this. I am starting to question my atheism. But then lies the question, what religion should I go to?
I'm glad I could help you in some way. Feel free to ask me any more questions if need be.
For your other question, of which religion is the correct one, that is really a two part question, the first being which is the one that has the most evidence and conforms to reality and which one makes the most sense. I would argue Christianity fits both of these categories, in that we can argue for the historical evidence of the resurrection. But for the second part you will not find a God like Christ and these will explain:
Why Christianity is Different - Dr. Timothy Keller
The Truth About Christianity
I hope that helps. Let me know what you think.
I am still lost as a bastard on Father's Day as to how this is a compelling argument to the existence of God. I see it falling apart at premise 3, because God could not exist in any possible world where God doesn't exist.
What am I missing?
You're kidding me right? How did you go?
It doesn't matter which religion you pick. They're all made up. That's why there are so many of them, and why they always suit the society that makes them up. So sure, pick any that make you feel better.
Try to find a religion that isn't as steeped in tribalism and sexism as the evil abrahamic faiths. Try, instead, to go for the religion that has actual evidence, rather than creatively interpreted poetry and the ravings of madmen that used to be called 'prophets'.
Do not choose a religion who's head prophet was a child rapist. I would hope you're too moral to uphold such a person as 'good'.
This is the best explanation I have ever heard!! Thanks bud!! God bless!!
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science
Hmm, defining greatness is your problem. The have to have an objective standard of greatness. You can't have that without begging the question.
Alvin is using a perfectly normal assumption. its like asking numbers are abstract. Are they ... Isn't that ... Not it isn't. Abstractness is in the concept of number but a number is can still be argued over.
Power Level: Infinity
Love Level: Infinity
Wisdom Level: Infinity
Creative Level: The Entire Universe
Now y'all can play that God card whenever
necessity being greater than contingency is axiomatic because existing > not existing so that itself is a objective standard of greatness
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 But your still assuming. Is necessary existence always greater?
For example. I would say that it is not the case that it is greater or better for someone who commits genocide to exist. That at very least rules out the god of the Bible as being Maximally Great.
@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 Counter example:
1) If belief in a MGB is expected, it is greater for the being to give direct revelation and evidence.
2) Many people, myself included have not received direct revelation.
Therefore, by contradiction, it is not possible that a MGB exists.
Therefore premise 1 of the Ontological Argument is false.
You see the kinds of problems you get into with the subjectivity of 'greater' or 'better'?
(From last Comment)
tribbles exist because there is no detectable synthetic evidence for their existence. Just like the MGB described in the ontological argument can't be confirmed to exist without any detectable synthetic evidence.
The Ontological argument basically boils down to:
P1: I can conceive of a being with certain analytical properties
P2: One of the analytical properties is that he synthetically exists
(cont)
The definition of necessary, as stated in the video, is an entity that exists in all possible worlds. So, you are basing your argument over the existence of something over the basis that it exists?
So what's the point of the argument? You might as well just say God is maximumly great being, therefore he is necessary, and something that is necessary exists in all possible world, therefore God exists.
I'm by no mean, trying to deny God's existence, but the question at hand is the argument, which is logically unsound.
A definition is not good enough, one would also have to be metaphysically possible, not just defined as necessary.
InspiringPhilosophy you are defining god as a entity that exist, and using this definition to argue his existence
No, we are defining what a MGB is, and asking whether or not one is possible.
Zeus by Greek's definition, Odin by Norse mythology, Allah, by Quran's definition can all be used to replace God in this case. Imagine a possible world where people believe an omnipotent, all mighty Unicorn which happens to be a Maximum great being in their religious text, by extension, a god-like Unicorn exist?
God, in this case, is a predicate. Existence is not a predicate. If a triangle exists, it is necessary to have 3 sides. But it could be that no triangle exist at all. Because the idea of existence isn't part of how we define a triangle. If God exists, he will be an MGB, but that doesn't mean that he exists.
Premise 1: It's possible that God exists.
Definition: God = maximally great being = a *necessary* being... that has all good properties to the max, like being all-powerful and all-knowing.
Premise 1: It's *possible* that a *necessary* being exists... and so on...
This entire argument fails at the first premise.
@Eljot79 We use the word possibility to mean different things. Sometimes we mean it can happen (e.g. going to Mars is possible), other times we mean we don't know it can happen (it's possible we may figure out how to travel faster than light).
Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's necessary. So if you're just going to start out with "God is necessary" in the first premise, then what is the point of the rest of the argument?
so you think the argument fails because you don't believe it to be possible that a necessary being exists yet your ability to think consciously transcends the material your body is made from...
@@cmarran In modal logic "A necessary truth is a truth that could not fail to be true", such as 1+1=2. The way I see it, there is no point in making an argument if you're going to start the conversation with "this must be true".
Possibility in this context would mean we already know it's true, like it's possible to get 2 from 1+1.
Agreed. This argument is just presuppositionalism dressed up in different clothes.
Restless How does my ability to think transcend my body? I have never had a thought that didn’t originate from my body.
The MGB, or _Maximally Great Burger_, necessarily exists within my mouth in all possible worlds. But I haven't even had breakfast yet! :(
Seriously though, you can also use this argument for a MGMB, a 'Maximally Great Malevolent Being', who in order to be considered as maximally great, must necessarily be more powerful than any God. Are you really ready to define the MGMB into existence?
I address that in part 2: ua-cam.com/video/ixqsZP7QP_o/v-deo.html
Well, sorta. You just used CS Lewis claims about evil merely being a perversion of good. I could claim the opposite, that good is merely a perversion of evil. The supposed existence of altruism doesn't help since it's highly questionable.
It should in fact be perfectly possible to use your argument for the existence of a maximally evil being, if not it's a flawed argument. That you happen to prefer a maximally great being is irrelevant. Excuses for why a maximally evil being can't exist can simply be mirrored and used for the non-existence of a maximally great being, assuming those excuses are sound.
In any case, if sound, all the argument would show is it's rational to conclude a maximally great or evil being may exist, as Plantinga himself says:
_“Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (Plantinga "The Nature of Necessity" 1974, 221)._
In addition, as I said in my first message, if it worked the way some theists seem to hope, the argument could summon into existence any maximally great X, or maximally evil X, of any kind:- if I can imagine it, it must necessarily be real!
If that is the case you need to show how evil can be done for evil's sake, and you need to show evil can be done without something good happening, like power, pleasure, or safety. Just asserting ood is merely a perversion of evil is not good enough.
Second, that is actually quote mining Platinga, as I post the full quote at the end of this video: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
+InspiringPhilosophy
You need to show how good can be done for good's sake, and you need to show good can be done without something evil happening, like greed, fear, or envy. Just asserting evil is merely a perversion of good, and quoting CS Lewis on the matter, is not good enough. In fact, it's downright evil of you! There's some evidence right there :P
(P.S. I included Plantinga's whole quote above -no edits - how does that constitute quote mining?)
Matt Smith Sure, a child gives a flower to his mother to make her happy. I went over this in the video and demonstrated you can have good without evil.
As a Christian who certainly believes that God exists and is eternal, I’m struggling with these premises.
So, a “possible world” is a hypothetical situation. And “God” is necessary. I agree, God is necessary. But to the atheist, God is not necessary. The atheist doesn’t say “It is possible that God doesn’t exist.” Thus, leaving the door open for the possibility that God does exist. No, he says “It is not possible that God exists.”
Seems to me that an atheist could flip the premises around to his favor by saying:
Premise 1: It is not possible that God exists.
Premise 2: If it is not possible that God exists, then God doesn’t exist in some possible worlds (or in any hypothetical situation).
Premise 3: If God doesn’t exist in some possible worlds, then God doesn’t exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God doesn’t exist in all possible worlds, then doesn’t exist in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God doesn’t exist in the actual world, then God doesn’t exist.
As a former, hard-core atheist, that is how I thought.
The atheist’s struggle is knowing that he and the universe exist, but, at some point in time didn’t. Leaving him pondering the question of “How does something exist now when nothing existed before to cause what exists now?”
For me, the only plausible answer to this question is, something immaterial outside of this existence must have existed to create this existence.
when an all powerful, supreme being has to resort to this nonsense you know he does not exist
The Modal Argument is actually a rather different argument than Anselm's, though they might be equivalent, given the context of Anselm's Platonic Metaphysic.
The trick here, I think, is the assertion, unproblematic at first glance, that Necessary Being exists *IN* a possible world. This is what Aristotle might call a category shift. In Set Theory, we might call it Inverting the Set, presenting Necessary Being (NB) as part of the Set of Possible Being, rather than the other way around. In reality, to say that a NB exists in a possible world is to contradict oneself. Possible Worlds can only contain Contingent Beings, while NB contains all possible worlds by definition. To hypothesize a Possible World that contains a given being is to characterize said being as contingent in the first place. Note that this is what happens in plain language all the time. When Rod Steiger asks us in the Twilight Zone to picture a world with various bizarre oddities, he is simultaneously acknowledging that such oddities are simultaneously false in this world ('Picture *a world*') and nonetheless conceptually feasible (*Picture* a world).
This means that no MGB can be hypothesized to exist in a Possible World; because to state that this being exists in a Possible World is precisely to state that it exists Possibly, hence contingently; hence the being is not necessary, hence the being is *not* the MGB. Reductio ad Absurdum, QED.
Thus, the initial hypothesis is unintelligible. If I hypothesize a MGB under the condition of Necessity being a Great-making property, then I CANNOT consistently ALSO hypothesize this being as existing in a *possible* world. I can only hypothesize this Being existing Absolutely or not at all, and the argument never gets off the ground.
+Life of Brian If a NB is in all possible worlds, then possible worlds contain NB, not just contingent beings, and there is no contradiction.
Possible doesn't mean contingent. A possible world is a logical construct of the actual world, not a contingent thing along side a NB.
+InspiringPhilosophy The whole gist of my point lies in the crucial distinction between saying that Possible Worlds *are contained* in NB and saying that Possible Worlds *contain* NB. The first is unintelligible. Possible Worlds *cannot contain* NB. The premise of a MGB being *in* a possible world is self-contradictory. MGB either is or is not, regardless of possible worlds (if MGB participates in NB).
Life of Brian What do you think possible worlds are?
+InspiringPhilosophy Possible Worlds, as I understand them, represent various permutations of contingent potential, arrangements of things that can exist in principle, that are not self-contradictory or otherwise unfeasible. To say 'x exists in a possible world' is to say, essentially, that 'x is feasible'.
And this is why I see the premise of NB existing in a *possible* world as being incoherent. A possible world means nothing if not an actualization of feasible though unrealized potential. But Necessary Being has no potential that is not actualized. So if you say that something possessing the property of NB exists in a possible world, you are in one sense guilty of redundancy and in another of an omission. To postulate NB in the realm of possibility is to postulate NB into existence in actuality. The argument hence does nothing that the postulate didn't do already.
+Life of Brian Right, so what is wrong with saying a NB is possible? This doesn't show a NB exists in the actual world, but it shows that since a NB is logically coherent and possible then any logical construct of the actual world we can come up with, must contain one. So if any logical construct of the actual world has a NB it is reasonable to conlcude the actual world does as well.
Well done, a clear concise explanation, thumbs up.
Hi IP. I'm a theist, so my intention isn't to have a heated, intense internet-style religious debate with you, but I do have a question I'd like to see you answer, if you can.
I used to believe this argument to be very effective, until recently. What began to change my mind was a realization that we don't have any real examples of anything with necessary existence, so we can't know if it's a possible property. Let me explain.
At 3:24 you gave some examples, namely Numbers, Absolute Truths, and Shape Definitions. But is there any evidence to show that these actually exist independent of thought? It seems to me that things like Numbers, Definitions, and those sorts of things are just ways we measure reality. They exist in our heads, and that's it. So my question to you is, do you have any other examples of entities that exist necessarily, or can you convince me that abstract objects exist externally?
Yes, the answer to this is to point out when we say God is possible, we are saying He is not just logically possible, but metaphysically possible. And the only way something can be metaphysically possible is if it relies on a posteriori arguments from evidence. See here:
Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2)
Are there any arguments that can give metaphysical support to the property of necessary existence? So far it seems that necessary existence (i.e. existing in all possible worlds) is a logically possible property, but not metaphysically possible property. Forgive me if I missed something and I'm just speaking out of ignorance. Thanks for responding.
PirishLad Yes, there is a good one in particular: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
We can show the necessity in metaphysics for a necessary substance.
Bob H Not if you argue from modern cosmology and quantum physics, as I did in that video.
Hi I want to thank you for making these videos. This is good way to spend time listening and studying. It is good to see that there are young people who have learned to think their faith more deebly like I have. In fifty years apologists like Craig, Lennox, Zacharias etc are gone and there have to be someone who will pass their knowledge.
But I have one objection to ontological argument. I may not understand the concept of the possible worlds, but my objection goes like this:
I simply don't see any implication with those premises. That may be, because we define God as nessessary being, but without any positive arguments supporting the nesessarity of God, therefore we are just making a blind assumption that God must be nessessary, which can be shown false formulating an argument like this:
Ontological argument only works if God is set to be a nessessary being.
Premise 1: If God is nessessary being, then there are no logically possible worlds where God doesn't exist.
Premise 2: There are logically possible worlds where God doesn't exist.
It follows: God is not nessessary being.
Therefore: Ontological argument doesn't work.
I have abandoned ontological argument because of this objection what I made. do you have answer for this?
The argument argues from the properties primarily: is a being possible that would contain all GMPs, which include necessity, who we then call God. To ask why God is a necessary being is like asking why is red a color. It is by definition.
I would recommend this other video I did. There may be logical possible worlds where God doesn't exist, but what are important is metaphysical possible worlds: ua-cam.com/video/_JRsHIN5ATY/v-deo.html
Okay, now I maybe understand it. Correct me if I am wrong.
In order to use my objection, we have to proof that God is not a nessessary being, which as now we can't do. Did I get you right?
jungledyret100 Well no, we need metaphysical evidence of a necessary being.
***** _"There may be logical possible worlds where God doesn't exist, but what are important is metaphysical possible worlds"_
No. What's important is the probable worlds, given what we know about reality, because any metaphysics can simply be dismissed and replaced with some other metaphysics that turns what's necessary under one system into impossibilities in another.
It's only that a world is probable given the evidence that could ever give us a rational reason to believe something exists.(This is why science doesn't do metaphysics)
jungledyret100
_"In order to use my objection, we have to proof that God is not a nessessary being, which as now we can't do. Did I get you right?"_
That's Plantinga's conclusion at the end of his paper. He thinks the naturalist is at a disadvantage because of this. However, there are mirror arguments for Naturalism, so the MOA is meaningless mental masturbation.
See my video, "The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)"
Number 3 and 4 have always stumped me. If god exist in the hypothetical world he also exist in reality. A Real GOD is greater than one that exist hypothetically. WHAT?
The conclusion doesn't go bend logic. If God exists in all logical constructs of the actual world then any logical construct must contain God. So the conclusion is it is logical to accept God exists in the actual world.
I saw in your other videos that you say these arguments are not really made to prove the existence of god so I am ok with that answer.
Rundori He says it does not prove god, but then qualifies that with the addition that it shows it is the only reasonable outcome that god exists. Not much of a difference. Really it should be that belief in god is not illogical which also does not prove god actually exists.
" If God exists in all logical constructs of the actual world then any logical construct must contain God. So the conclusion is it is logical to accept God exists in the actual world"
- big jump here which is unjustified. All you can get from your statement is as follows.
" If God exists in all logical constructs of the actual world then any logical construct must contain God. So the conclusion is it is logical to accept God exists in the actual world as a logical construct"
others have refuted many parts of this argument. If you think a logical construct, reality, and our perception of reality are all the same thing, you are engaged in an equivocation fallacy. And I know this not an argument for a proof.
Rundori Oh sorry, only the first paragraph was for you. While I agree that this is not an argument for proof InspiringPhilosophy seems to try and pawn it off as proof by a different name.
The rest was for *****
The one question I have is from 4:32 for "Great making properties". Why is Absolute Omnibenevolence part of the great making properties when God is not all peaceful, when he has wrath? Can you define this?
Back to Orthodoxy Well, a better word i should have used would be moral perfection, since that is what I meant, I just out down the wrong thing. Moral perfection i about doing the right thing all the time, whether that is peace of justice.
Gotcha. I was about to say, as a Christian, I highly question that attribute. We may have different understandings of it but from how it is defined is that benevolent is "peaceful" and "omni" meaning "ALL".
A huge fallacy of Equivocation.
The number 2 or a square does NOT exist in nature. As you say, they are axiomatic and defined into "existence", thus they are CONCEPTIONAL. Exactly like a unicorn.
Following this logic, yes, of course the concept of God exists. Or, differently put, God exists as a conceptual being (let us put aside the fact, that using "exists" is also ambiguous. We refer the world to [natural] phenomena and so the word "exist" is begging the question in this situation). In fact, I would say the conceptual being God exists in many versions, probably as many people are around the world. Because the very definition is VAGUE - just like your definition of "maximally great" (why is "maximally corrupt" not being considered as part of being "maximally great"? because you define it so?)
And then, when you made a tautology, you equivocate the two usages of "exist" and thus the "conceptual being God" with the "actual existing God, who created the universe, a natural phenomena, and watches you while you masturbate".
This, my sir, is just a fancily-covered fallacy, and atheists understand it well enough.
...And we are not even talking about evidence.
I never said they exist in nature... They are abstract truths of reality. Second, you are confusing the modal version with the original version. Existence is not used a property, it is necessity, so no equivocation happens. As for a Maximally corrupt being, i deal with that here: ua-cam.com/video/ixqsZP7QP_o/v-deo.html
"I never said they exist in nature... "
You never said it about 2 and a square, but you implied that about God. That is actually your conclusion (you may argue that God is supernatural, but he is/was still effecting the natural world).
"They are abstract truths of reality."
Again, confusing definitions. "Truth", because we define it that way. When we are talking about natural phenomenon, we use "truth" as "which comports with reality". Even more, because the easy confusion, we try to avoid it in science altogether. That's why we never "prove" or consider anything as "Truth" in science, it is not even our goal.
"Existence is not used a property, it is necessity."
For the "conceptual being God". For the "actual existing God", you have to demonstrate existence or prove the opposite notion to be false. You cannot conceive God or anything else into being. Only the concept of God (or the concept of anything else). Just like a painter cannot paint a house. He can only paint a PICTURE of a house.
I will check your video about the Maximally corrupt being.
No, not at all. A MGB is not bound by space-time, if He was He would not be a MGB because He would be limited.
"Again, confusing definitions. "Truth", because we define it that way. "
- Is is absolutely true we define truth? Nothing you said changes the fact that mathematics is objectively true and necessary.
we did not conceive God or anything else into being., we simply demonstrated if a MGB is possible, then every logical construct of the actual world would have one, and then the most logical way to view the actual world is with a MGB.
"A MGB is not bound by space-time"
Again, for the conceptual being. That's how you define it. It doesn't mean that such a thing indeed exists.
"Is it absolutely true we define truth?" (I guess you wanted to say this instead of "Is is")
Really? Are we arguing about definitions? Because your question is about that. But to address your point - well yes, it is absolutely true that we define truth if we are talking about deductive/axiomatic truths. If you are not doing that, then you are not defining truth, by DEFINITION. But you completely neglected the point that you just equivocated mathematical/deductive truths with facts about reality/existential "truths".
"Nothing you said changes the fact that mathematics is objectively true and necessary. "
Well, no. Mathematics is arbitrarily true and deductive in nature, it is just the most efficient language to describe natural/logical/economical/pick-your-one phenomenon. Change "mathematics" to "English" in your sentence and see if it is still sound (of course, I do recognize that mathematical or linguistic correlations are a different, but you did not talk about that).
"we simply demonstrated if a MGB is possible, then every logical construct of the actual world would have one"
Even if that is true, it wouldn't mean that it is part of reality. You didn't demonstrate the possibility of a MGB in terms of reality. Logical constructs might be beautiful and valid in structure, but they don't tell you anything about the real world on their own. Again, that's why we have induction.
AdolfvonHeidrich Quantum field theory actually acknowledges existence of natural numbers as objective reality in the very nature of space and not merely a conceptual construct. Secondly, injection mapping is a well established empirically verified structure in nature, this alone preserves the countable sets and thus are necessary concepts. For example, if you deny existence of the realities of numbers then all of theoretical physics like string theories, Dbranes, etc tend to become meaningless.
A dialogue I had with someone on this argument:
Him:
The fact that one can think of a being that is maximally great and, therefore necessary, doesn't make the existence of that being therefore necessary. It just means that such a being can be imagined within a particular set of consistent and coherent logical axioms and proofs. It says nothing about actual reality.
Me:
So, in other words, it's possible for a maximally great being to exist. You've basically defined what a "possible world" is in the context of this argument.
He hasn't said a word to me about the argument since.
I assume that one party or the other in that conversation was wanting to show that God really exists, but I cannot tell which is which. Who was arguing for God here?
The conclusion that God exists in some possible world is not very interesting. The relevant conclusion is that God exists in the world we observe ourselves to be in.
The odd thing is that these arguments usually come from Christians, but nobody ever includes the step about how to get from believing in a God to believing in Jesus or believing that the Bible is more than a book of fables. Can someone point to an attempt to jump that gap?
Christopher Johnson so i can imagine a unicorn that is necesary to exist in all posible worlds. There, I just proves unicorns. This argument is circular reasoning
Great Job KEEP doing these videos
Question... How does it feel to cheer someone on for deceiving you? None of this is inspirational, or remotely logically sound. This is just lying for religion, otherwise known as apologetics.
the best and the easiest argument for God is the Shroud of Turin
because atheist will have a dilemma if they try to debunk it by using science,
Basically, if you say everything logical is fictional creation, then say is the statement everything is a fictional creation. You cannot state a principle that is beyond that criteria. If all definitions are arbitrarily assigned then so is this definition that all things are arbitrarily assigned.
Arguments are great and all (only non-fallacious ones), however someone can argue about the existence of something or a being or whatever (like the Judeo-Christian god) until they're blue in the face and it won't mean shit if it isn't demonstrable. Existential claims need an empirical basis of evidence, not just argumentation. The ontological argument is indeed fallacious but even if every premise were true and/or coherent, where is the evidence for "God" outside of the ontological argument? I can make the assertion that pink, talking, unicorn's exist and make the same argument for the existence of them (in terms of the premises of the ontological argument) but even if my claim was true and/or coherent then what's the point of believing in pink, talking, unicorn's if there is not empirical evidence to support it? In science claims are backed up with empirical evidence even though formalized logic (such as mathematics) is used as well.
I will also state my problems with the modal ontological argument, they are as follows:
First premise: This premise needs empirical evidence to support it, how do you know it is possible for "God" to exist? how do you know it is possible for any arbitrary deity to exist? I would also say that this initial premise commits the fallacy of "begging the question" (right off the bat your the ontological argument falls apart, from here things get worse.)
Second premise: True?
Third premise: Non sequitor
Fourth premise: Non sequitor
Fifth premise: Circular reasoning, premise five basically asserts that if "God" exists then "God" exists.
See here: Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2) Where I point out their is a posteriori evidence. And the circular objection here: The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)
***** "The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)" - Premise 1: It is possible that X exists. Premise 2: If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible worlds. Premise 3: If X exists in some possible worlds, then X exists in the actual world. Premise 4: If X exists in some possible worlds, then X exists in the actual world. Premise 5: If X exists in the actual world, then X exists. Conclusion: Therefore, X exists. ‘Premise 2’ - ‘premise 5’ are just definitions and offer no new information to support ‘premise 1’. ‘Premise 1’ and the ‘conclusion’ are equivalent; this means that the ontological argument does beg the question and consequently it is circular reasoning. Even if this argument is informative it is still invalid. Lastly I would like to say that claims need to be backed up with evidence; a non-believer does not carry the burden of proof because disbelief is not equivalent to belief. Belief comes with claims; disbelief does not inherently come with claims.
I was gonna type more but If I did that it would be like a TL;DR thing going on here so. "Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (Part 2)" - please see these links ----> bit.ly/1xn4GBf || bit.ly/1F1ZtRP
Jules Winnfield No, as I pointed out there is a difference between circular arguments and question begging and informative arguments are not begging the question if they are circular. Second, it is not invalid. To be invalid means the premises would not follow, and no one denies that... Second, I gave evidence in my other videos... Those videos are are still self-defeating since they rely on epistemic skepticism, which defeats itself.
Bob H Yeah, there are no schools of thought surrounding epistemic skepticism... It is all meaningless... Same old personal attacks and no arguments from you, as usual.
***** First, you did in fact point out that there is a difference between circular arguments and question begging, however you say, “In most cases the argument is both circular and question begging.” Guess what? The ontological argument in your video is both “question begging” and “circular” because ‘premise 1’ and the ‘conclusion’ are equivalent and the ‘conclusion’ is assumed to be true because after ‘premise 1’ no new information is given in ‘premise 2’ - ‘premise 5’ other than definitions that are unconvincing in the context of the argument. Secondly, "circular logic" and "begging the question" are both informal logical fallacies. As far as I can tell, informal logical fallacies may be valid, but not sound. Lastly, I do not see how, “epistemic skepticism defeats itself.” How does it defeat itself? I'm under the impression that skepticism is a useful epistemic tool in order to not be duped into believing stupid shit.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Premise 1: It is possible that 10 foot tall, Leprechaun’s exist.
Premise 2: If it is possible that 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist, then 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in some possible worlds, then 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in the actual world.
Premise 4: If 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in some possible worlds, then 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in the actual world.
Premise 5: If 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist in the actual world, then 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, 10 foot tall Leprechaun’s exist.
Oh, is this argument bad because it has “10 foot tall, Leprechaun’s” instead of “God (MGB)”? If not, then why? If so, then at least you’re consistent in defending the ontological argument.
Thanks for the time and effort you have put into these videos. I really like and appreciate your approach, content and presentations.
Is the Ontological Argument dependent on the Contingency Argument?
* If you simply argue that God is maximally great in P1, why not eliminate P2 (just jump to P3). But, it can't skip P2; otherwise, it would not be ontological. It will become another version of the Contingency Argument.
* The key here is to equate the Maximally Great Being to Necessary Being from P1 to P2 and P3.
* While the Contingency Argument simply argues for the actual world, the Ontological Argument wants to extend the existence of God in other possible worlds, and then go back to the actual world.
* Doesn't that make the OA an unnecessary argument? What I expected from the OA is defend the definition, and make it independent of the Contingency Argument.
* Normally, people would wonder: if that is the definition of God, does he actually exist? People would expect evidence. Rather than showing evidence, the OA cleverly takes a different route. It shows that you will find God in whatever possible world we could have.
* Remember, the Contingency Argument doesn't have to qualify God as Maximally Great Being, but simply Necessary Being.
* Therefore, my reservation is, does the Maximally Great Being necessarily exist? Or, reversing the question, does the Necessary Being have to be maximally great?
The number two does not "just exist necessarily". It's a product of a brain grouping similar things together.
2 apples are 2 things that are grouped together because they look like apples. 1 apple and 1 banana are 2 things grouped together as 2 pieces of fruit because they look like fruit. Similarly the 2 apples may be 1 green apple and 1 red apples.
"2" isn't intrinsic to anything.
You are telling me if humans did not exist 2+2 would not equal 4? I think you are confusing the symbol or semantics with the ontology.
I’m dying inside this is look at the trees level of convincing. You actually called this irrefutable.
You know he made a follow up for people like you right? Check it out.
Let us define a Gunicorn as a maximally great unicorn. The argument applies to a Gunicorn as well. You can even do it withs godS. And even if we accepted the fallacy of this argument, it would be the same as if we accepted the cosmological argument: it would only prove the existence of A god, not of the judeo-christian god, and would only prove that we should be deists, not theists. If you fail to see all the errors of this argument, then you really aren't a philosopher. I agree that you cannot disprove the existence of God, as God is anything one wants to be. But you also cannot prove his existence. I will simply show you the two most apparent flaws of this argument: first of all, you suppose in advance the existence of God by defining it as something that must exist (hence the counter-argument made by the guy on "The Atheist Experience"). Secondly,you simply assume that it is possible that God exists, and that premise would need more proof than "The stone argument is wrong".
+TheMaxtimax If Gunicorn is a unicorn then it cannot be necessarily existing. They are contigent.
+TheMaxtimax If Gunicorn is a unicorn then it cannot be necessarily existing. It is contigent.
It is a maximally great unicorn, therefore it is necessarily existing, according to the argument he gave
TheMaxtimax
What is a maximally great unicorn, one that eats 1000tonnes of grass, or the one that has 10 foot long horn?
Well it's the same as a maximally great being, except it's a unicorn :p
As I said on the teleological argument video, we don't know if the universe could have turned out a different way. This may be the only metaphysically possible world it also may not. If there are other metaphysical possible worlds, there is no evidence that God can exist in any of them.
This is totally biased. This is a tailored made argument for christians. When you quote scripture to try to make more sense of this argument you actually lose credibility.
+afvro75 No, I only quoted to show consistency, I did not use it has evidence.
+InspiringPhilosophy he didn't say you used it as evidence.
+spamgate1 Freudian slip
Why do these atheists make fun of the existence of unicorns when many of these people believe in an infinite multiverse, which means that they think unicorns actually do exist?
Or the Many-worlds interpretation of QM.
*****
I was talking about the AES (I don't know their position on the multiverse.) It seems that on QM, they take a position called handwavingism, which means that they don't give a crap.
Christopher Johnson "They don't give a crap" is easily disproven since that are quite observably bothering to watch and address and rebuttal this video. Obviously they do they give a crap, or why else ate they commenting here? Your theory that they don't give a crap is quite an observable ironic sentiment in terms of actual practice.
Infinite multiverse? xD Infinity is not a thing.. it's a concept.
Or in today's world, where if you tell the girl in the video she doesn't have polka dots, people attack you because you don't #BelieveHer
God by definition is Infinite (maximally great), to think some people compare Him to an unicorn, which are finite beings.
.. Sam.. if God is infinite, then He must be either infinitely Good, or infinitely evil.. he cannot switch between the two, for then He would be Divided, not ONE...
@@GARYWERSLEY Infinite divided by 2 is still Infinite. While the judeo-christian God represents itself as good that doesnt mean he cant be perceived as evil (see many seculars criticising Him).
He can potentially be one or the other, or both depending of your personal view, either way He is the one that decides the rules, as Infinite He precedes the very notion of good and evil, the whole idea on a conceptual level.
He is potentially anything or everything He wants to be or manifest or be perceived as.
@@sam.246 .. the Judaeo Christian Arabic God does not exist.. the rules were made by men.. claims of Divine Revelation are nonsense..
indifference precedes the notions of good and evil.. if there is a Supreme Being, then it is indifferent... if God is Good, then He cannot be Evil.. if He is Evil, then He is not Good.. an evil God would be no better than Satan, who also does not exist...
you describe a God with human feelings, or more so.. this would be a God who changes his divine mind, sometime loving, sometime hating.. just like us humans.. such a God is not One, but many passions.. there is no good reason to believe in such a God..
there is no Saviour, no Salvation...
@@GARYWERSLEY Nope, Im saying He can potentially be good or evil, He infact decides what is or not, so If He wants to be perceived as only good He can as well.
For example, in this world, which has certain specifications, good could be X and evil Y.
But if He wanted to create a world where good is Y and evil is X, He could, He might not but He could.
He decides what is good or evil in any possible scenario, He is potentially anything He wants to be.
@@sam.246 ..unicorns are not finite beings, they are imaginary beings, same as God, same as angels..
but if God is infinite, then he is either infinitely good or infinitely evil..
meaning, deliberately good or deliberately evil.. but no, God appears to be infinitely indifferent.. He cannot change His Divine Mind, because he is not Mind...
evil is a human concept...
Perhaps I'm missing something: It sounds like an Axiom of your argument is that God is defined as a "necessary" being (4:56). If this is the case, what need is there for 4 more steps of logic?
I even thought Premise 1 states the opposite. It states that God's existence is POSSIBLE, which is specifically distinct and mutually-exclusive from NECESSARY.
Glurth Iam Well, yes, God is ontologically necessary. It is a property He would have and then such a being is metaphysically possible.
***** But if is something is POSSIBLE, that implies it might NOT exists. But by the definitions used in the video, if something is necessary, that implies is MUST exists, this in turn means it is impossible for it to NOT exist. This is why I conclude that calling something both POSSIBLE and NECESSARY is self contradictory, and effectively nonsensical. I realize I'm being semantic here, but semantics is really the only tool we have for communication of this idea. I felt Premise 1 clearly posits that God has the property of POSSIBLE, which implies that he cannot have the property NECESSARY (in the case of the Ontological Argument). Thanks, by the way, for getting my brain thinking!
Glurth Iam Well if something is defined at necessary that doesn't mean it also exists. it might be an impossible definition. Something has to be necessary and metaphysically possible for it to logically follow it would exist.
***** I'm tying to follow your own definitions, to avoid confusion, in particular the one presented at 4:56 that states a necessary being exists in all possible worlds. (Which implies, there are no possible world in which a necessary being does NOT exist) This appears to be contradicted by your comment "if something is defined at necessary that doesn't mean it also exists". Can you reconcile that?Impossible definition? Sorry brother, but this sounds like a cop-out: how can you create or defend a logical argument about something that you cannot define? I'm afraid this is confirming my opinion that, given the definitions in the video, the ontological argument, is in fact, illogical.
Regarding your last sentence, I am living proof that something does NOT need to be necessary, for it to exist. The world would have got-on just fine if I had never been born.
Glurth Iam It is easy. I could define a tree as necessary, that doesn't mean it exists. Since a tree is a physical thing that requires time and a creation it cannot be necessary. So giving definition doesn't entail they are coherent or possible.
The idea of a Maximally Great Being is a useless and empty concept. You can come up with the greatest conceivable being that has the best of absolutely everything. It is "maximally great." However all I have to do is say "yeah well my being can do all the stuff that yours can do, except he can also beat yours up." Suddenly your being is no longer maximally great. It's just like trying to come up with the largest possible number. You are always able to just add one more.
Sigh* Then the first being is not a MGB, but another contingent being and then latter is the MGB. Nothing changes within the argument...
*****
Didn't you understand? The concept of a Maximally Great Being is a logically impossible one. You are always able to add 1, meaning nothing can ever be maximally great.
SuperSupermanX1999 The argument is not the most powerful, but all powerful. All we are saying is the greatest possible being, or the maximal being... By definition nothing would be beyond that.
*****
"by definition nothing would be beyond that."
That doesn't change the fact that it is still a logically impossible concept. Once again, you can always just add 1 to the maximally large number, so you can also always just add one more centimetre to the size or other characteristic of the maximally great being. It is logically impossible for anything to be maximally great.
SuperSupermanX1999 No... because we are talking about the quality of properties, not the quantity... If something is omniscient it is all knowing. You can't add anything to that...