As much as I do agree that Mr McMillan's video are good at summarising the Units in A level RS, he has not mentioned here Anselm's response to Gaunilo which is helpful in backing up his second form. Anselm countered Gaunilo by saying that God and an island could not possibly be compared as like is not being compared with like, leading on to his second form about necessary and contingent beings. He said that an island and many other things, if not all things beside God and his characteristics such as love and being just etc, are contingent, that they have come into existence from not having existed beforehand and will stop existing one day too. I'm not necessarily defending the Ontological Argument or saying it's good, but that this could be a counter-argument in a 10 mark part B question.
Hi Harry, good point, well made. My videos are not a substitute for good studying of your own, and are only really designed for revision purposes. The Ontological Argument typically is studied at A2, where students should be reading into the subject themselves, as you have done.
Indeed. Apologies if I came across as trying to correct or say you're wrong which wasn't my intention, only to provide that response to Gaunilo's criticism so it didn't seem irrefutable. :)
Absolutely love your videos, they helped me revise through GCSE's and are now doing so with AS's. Is there any chance for some new ones covering other topics for A levels, such as Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, Plato and Aristotles philosophy with the unmoved mover etc? Thank you so much for taking the time to even make these they're greatly appreciated :)
Fantastic collection of the history of the best moves. Plantinga has rejoinders to Kant and Gaunilo that are pretty powerful. And his discussion of the argument with Lawrence Kuhn on 'Closer to Truth' is a bit clearer of an argument than the one you took from for this presentation. Once you listen to Plantinga it becomes more obvious the argument works so long as God is possible (ontologically, not just epistemically), but establishing God's possibility is no simple task.
3:50 - 5:00 So a chair has [Simplified] a seat, a stand, and a back. but existence is not a predicate? I disagree. you can imagine a chair yes, but it doesn't exist, so it does not actually have any of those parts, and is not a chair. if to be a chair it has to have those parts, it has to exist, because if the chair doesn't exist neither do its parts and therefore, without its parts, it is not a chair. Idk man I'm just a teenager and may be wrong but to me it seems like existence is a predicate for a lot of things . . .
i clicked on this because i wanted a clear understanding what the term Ontological meant! Although its aimed at A level Revision and Mr Mcmillan does a pretty good job at summarising the various for and against arguments,if this represents the sum total of human reasoning at various junctures of human history,is an absolutely depressing thought! there is Descarte saying i think therefore i am,thats as useful as saying Im Pink therefore im Spam,those arguing for the ontological existence of God,are just offering Intellectual Conceits! i must say this slots in nicely with the notion taught at schools that we have all recently come from animals,little more than cavemen or barbarians,maybe the object of a level syllabus is to make youngsters so depressed they will never want to look? All i can say is with the Ontological Argument that Anselm has been accredited with,although I dont believe for one minute it was the first caseof an ontological argument,surely this has been used in early Hindu and Buddhist scriptures thousands of years Prior to this,Buddhapalita 470-550,certainly used it,to name one,so why are our young scholars heads being filled with Lies,this isnt education,its brainwashing!
a point that might be missing is the adress of the actual premises (not the argument structure). in Anselm version fe: p1 is 'the greatest thing conceivable' actually a coherent, properly defined idea to begin with. can that even 'possibly' exist: in mind and/or in reality? (can the largest be the smallest, what makes certain things great and what not?) p2 clearly misses the option that god exists in reality only, but not in our mind (meaning no-one has a decent picture of what god actually is... so there may be this god... but no one gets to refer to knowlegde of that being')?
One issue I have with the argument is that i can think of a god greater than the gods on offer and that these god therefore cannot exist. The argument flips and becomes an argument against the appologists god. And the problem ofcourse becomes worse when you realize that greatness is an infinete and often highly subjective attribute. No matter how great a god you can imagine I can think of one that is greater - all I have to do is to take that god at throw in a free pizza and he becomes slightly greater. Thus the absense of a free pizza is proof that god does not exist.
Hi, could your please explain to me the second premise of Norman Malcolm's Ontological argument, I'm kind of confused.." it's not impossible because it's not contradictory"? Contradictory to what exactly?
I think, in the later versions, the thing that kind of tricks a lot of people is the claim that "God is a necessary being." Obviously, some things can be necessraily true - but that necessity is always contingent on something. "Given that I see smoke, there must be a fire" (because the only thing that produces smoke is fire.... in this example anyway). But that's a different kind of necessity than that ascribed to God. In this argument, God's existence is necessary without it being necessitated by anything. And _that_, in my opinion, is far from obviously plausible. The first kind of necessity is based on observation or definition, and is like an implication: X→Y God's necessity certainly has no observation in it, just the definition, and there is no predicate in the implication, it's just ...→Y. That's why I think that at best, we don't know if God's existence is possible (so we can't say for sure that it's necessary or impossible).
this video made the somewhat confusing argument clear to me, it is very interesting and easy to follow :), i think this argument is easily the best of the lot and seems very likely to be true
No... Its the most absurd argument for some god... Its a word game attempt to define God into existence... A wordy wordy attempt to hide all the fallacies in it by using words and convoluted ideas to hide them
Do you save the powerpoints you make, or notes? If so I was wondering if it'd be possible if you could make them available for us to save! I love these videos and the powerpoints are amazing! Thank you so much for making them
My thoughts upon a few minutes pondering: The mind cannot fathom infinity, therefore the mind cannot conceive something that in which nothing greater exists. The mind cannot reliably measure something infinitely great such as God. "Greater" is ambiguous, and becomes an overworked word. Why is it greater for something to exist in reality than in just the mind? That seems to be an opinion-based, human opinion forced upon the logic. Also, the realm of the mind is seeming to be separate from the realm of reality. This is slightly off topic, perhaps, but can't someone deduce: Since the mind exists in reality, and God exists in the mind, then God exists in reality -- therefore things can only exist in the mind and reality. This then becomes a question of scope, rather than existence vs non-existence.
Some interesting thoughts here. I particularly agree with your point on the use of the word "Greater". I've always considered it too subjective to have any meaningful place in a deductive argument. Obviously, one could try to define it more clearly, but without such a clear definition, it does remain ambiguous, as you say.
"greater" is subjective, but the real problem lies in "greatest." it's is relative term. it describes something within a finite set of objects with finite values. relative terms don't describe absolutes. finite terms don't define infinites. *"it does remain ambiguous"* as "greatest" does in describing an infinite. "of the numbers 3, 4 and 5, 5 has the greatest value;" what could it mean, upon adding infinity to that set, to then determine it to be "greatest" number within that set?! seems tautological. KEvron
MrMcMillanREvis There is a neat refutation of the version in which "God is the greatest conceivable being". The argument goes as follows: a) God is the greatest conceivable being and b) Existance is greater than non-existance. Therefore c) God exists. In this argument, we have defined God as being the greatest thing in existance. This means, that whatever thing is the greatest thing in existance (after some arbitrary scale of greatness) is now called God. This means that all Biblical connotations with the word God has been removed, since we redefined him as "the greatest thing in existance".
MrMcMillanREvis thank you for replying! ^_^ I think doing Epistemology and Ethics would broaden your channel into a more philosophical channel for revision. It would do great and your videos are gold!!
Existence in God's definition is also very peculiar. Because God doesn't exist like anything else. He doesn't participate in existence. He is the very existence (ipsum esse). The very question "does God exist?" makes no sense according to the Christian definition of God. We have existence but our existence can be taken away from us. This is a very complex subject.
I don't understan why the OA is taken seriously, how is it not simple equivocation? Conflating real vs imagined existance and greatness. I can see how the greatest conceivable being would have to be _imagined_ to exist, but why on earth would it have to _actually_ exist?
Despite the first rule of the Ontological argument being that everyone has an 'idea' of god in their mind, the argument was intended for people who already believed in god and not designed to convert people. It's purpose was simply to strengthen faith not create it. It has no merit for anything else as the definition comes from the Bible and the Bible is the proof that takes someone from blind faith to faith.
On what basis is "greatness" measured? What scale is used? Beings and concepts of beings do not exist in the same respect anymore than trees and paintings of trees exist in the same respect. If god exists and cannot cease to exist, then god is not omnipotent, and therefore is not the 'greatest' being conceivable. I can conceive a god that is 'greater' than the biblical god since the god I conceive of does not experience jealousy nor seeks revenge, amongst other things, therefore the biblical god is not the greatest being conceivable.
Besides the obvious question as to why you have to use word games to try and prove that something actually exists vs not existing. Especially when a non self contradictory definition cannot even be made by those making the claim. In science, the most rudimentary place you are required to begin is creating set of basic parameters of what is being defined/tested and making sure it is internally consistent. If you cant even reach that most simple step, you have not even started trying to show if your hypothesis has any validity at all.
Thank you for this video. I look forward to watching your other videos. This argument seems so silly once you take a step back and follow through with thinking about it critically for a couple of minutes. To say something is true and in reality because I can imagine it!!? It takes on so many assumptions I think in the premises that it would only work on people who already believe in a god. The worlds argument makes more sense or at least I find it more reasonable. The argument about god and existence is self contradictory because it has a premise that god could not cease to exist but if god is all powerful amd can do anything even god could cease to exist based off that definition of god. If there was a god that created out universe, it in no way needs to be the most powerful incredible being imaginable. It just would need the properties, whatever they may be to create our universe.
bobkilla430 Some interesting points you raise. Since the argument is deductive if you can show that any of the assumptions are false then the argument fails. I think the assumption most open to question is whether we can know what God is like. Anselm assumes his definition of God is true, but Aquinas would say we can't know the nature of God.
finbae l But there are lots of people who make videos to help others who are not Christian. It is possible to be kind and generous without believing in God
finbae l I'm afraid I'm going to plead the 5th and keep quiet on that one! I like to stay neutral so people can make up their own mind. Don't want to be accused of brain-washing either way!
James Eck Its an interesting one. I think they are the Marmite of Arguments. People tend to either think they are just pointless, or the most pure form of philosophy!
+almost atheist Half the people cited in the video calling bullshit on this terrible argument are pious Christians. Failing to establish that God exists doesn't mean that they established that God DOESN'T exist.
Of course God's self-understanding of His own necessity must be a priori and therefore an "ontological argument." So, if NO version of the Ontological is True then God does not exist! (BTW, God does exist and so some version of the ontological argument must be true or else God could not understand Himself. Indeed God just is the Understanding of His self-necessity. However, perhaps it is a feature of God's essence that only He can have access to this argument. Perhaps...)
+Jesus Christ II I refuse to prove that I exist says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing. Oh, says man, but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn’t it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don’t. Q.E.D. Oh, I hadn’t thought of that, says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. - Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Mr McMillan you are a Godsend! my A levels would be screwed without these videos, Thank you!
I can't imagine that an exposition of this subjects gets any clearer than this. Plus, I love the presentation! Fonts, colors, drawings...:-))
Great overview of the topic. I find myself coming back to this video from time to time and am grateful for the effort you put in.
As much as I do agree that Mr McMillan's video are good at summarising the Units in A level RS, he has not mentioned here Anselm's response to Gaunilo which is helpful in backing up his second form. Anselm countered Gaunilo by saying that God and an island could not possibly be compared as like is not being compared with like, leading on to his second form about necessary and contingent beings. He said that an island and many other things, if not all things beside God and his characteristics such as love and being just etc, are contingent, that they have come into existence from not having existed beforehand and will stop existing one day too. I'm not necessarily defending the Ontological Argument or saying it's good, but that this could be a counter-argument in a 10 mark part B question.
Hi Harry, good point, well made. My videos are not a substitute for good studying of your own, and are only really designed for revision purposes. The Ontological Argument typically is studied at A2, where students should be reading into the subject themselves, as you have done.
Indeed. Apologies if I came across as trying to correct or say you're wrong which wasn't my intention, only to provide that response to Gaunilo's criticism so it didn't seem irrefutable. :)
Hi Harry, no need to apologise. Dialogue is one of the best ways of learning.
The philosophy magazine or conversation? ;) Haha oh I do amuse myself! :P
Ha! There's probably literally only about 17 people in the world who get that joke!
Thank you for making these videos! They help me alot with my studies.
Lesbian rights!
thank you for explaining this! I have my philosophy exam on Thursday, this is the only video I've seen that's properly explained it!!
+Ellie Mason Same! Good luck
I have mine on Thursday too 🔫 good luck
Absolutely love your videos, they helped me revise through GCSE's and are now doing so with AS's. Is there any chance for some new ones covering other topics for A levels, such as Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, Plato and Aristotles philosophy with the unmoved mover etc? Thank you so much for taking the time to even make these they're greatly appreciated :)
I had to listen to this a few time but I finally got there in the end. THANK YOU!
This video was very helpful. Would you be able to make a video based on religious language for A2. Thanks
+Burak Demirbag Just wondering is your exam board Edexcel for R.S?
This was so helpful, thank you was really struggling with the ontological argument .
I found Philosophy the hardest part of my RE AS course but this video along with many others really helped me understand it better! Thank you
What other videos did u use?
This is very helpful after revising the topic since it refreshes my memory, thank you!
Fantastic collection of the history of the best moves. Plantinga has rejoinders to Kant and Gaunilo that are pretty powerful. And his discussion of the argument with Lawrence Kuhn on 'Closer to Truth' is a bit clearer of an argument than the one you took from for this presentation. Once you listen to Plantinga it becomes more obvious the argument works so long as God is possible (ontologically, not just epistemically), but establishing God's possibility is no simple task.
doing an essay tomorrow we were meant to plan for over the weekend! totally forgot but this really helps, thank you
3:50 - 5:00 So a chair has [Simplified] a seat, a stand, and a back. but existence is not a predicate? I disagree. you can imagine a chair yes, but it doesn't exist, so it does not actually have any of those parts, and is not a chair. if to be a chair it has to have those parts, it has to exist, because if the chair doesn't exist neither do its parts and therefore, without its parts, it is not a chair. Idk man I'm just a teenager and may be wrong but to me it seems like existence is a predicate for a lot of things . . .
Brillant!! Layed out all so well, easy to understand and aesthetically pleasing! Thank you.
Using the information just from this video would get me top marks in a simple ontological argument AS question?
6:57 these two arguments are not very equivalent, if someone exists necessarily then they exist by the self evident premise behind the definition.
Superb simple explanation.. Thank you
i clicked on this because i wanted a clear understanding what the term Ontological meant! Although its aimed at A level Revision and Mr Mcmillan does a pretty good job at summarising the various for and against arguments,if this represents the sum total of human reasoning at various junctures of human history,is an absolutely depressing thought! there is Descarte saying i think therefore i am,thats as useful as saying Im Pink therefore im Spam,those arguing for the ontological existence of God,are just offering Intellectual Conceits! i must say this slots in nicely with the notion taught at schools that we have all recently come from animals,little more than cavemen or barbarians,maybe the object of a level syllabus is to make youngsters so depressed they will never want to look?
All i can say is with the Ontological Argument that Anselm has been accredited with,although I dont believe for one minute it was the first caseof an ontological argument,surely this has been used in early Hindu and Buddhist scriptures thousands of years Prior to this,Buddhapalita 470-550,certainly used it,to name one,so why are our young scholars heads being filled with Lies,this isnt education,its brainwashing!
a point that might be missing is the adress of the actual premises (not the argument structure).
in Anselm version fe:
p1 is 'the greatest thing conceivable' actually a coherent, properly defined idea to begin with. can that even 'possibly' exist: in mind and/or in reality? (can the largest be the smallest, what makes certain things great and what not?)
p2 clearly misses the option that god exists in reality only, but not in our mind (meaning no-one has a decent picture of what god actually is... so there may be this god... but no one gets to refer to knowlegde of that being')?
Hi! I like your video. Do you have another video explaining Hegel's criticism of Kant's rebuttal? If not could you help me understand it? Thanks
One issue I have with the argument is that i can think of a god greater than the gods on offer and that these god therefore cannot exist. The argument flips and becomes an argument against the appologists god. And the problem ofcourse becomes worse when you realize that greatness is an infinete and often highly subjective attribute. No matter how great a god you can imagine I can think of one that is greater - all I have to do is to take that god at throw in a free pizza and he becomes slightly greater. Thus the absense of a free pizza is proof that god does not exist.
Hi
Can you please make videos like this for all philosophy and ethics topics? For as level and a level.These videos were very helpful thank you!
can you do a video on religious language please!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi, could your please explain to me the second premise of Norman Malcolm's Ontological argument, I'm kind of confused.." it's not impossible because it's not contradictory"? Contradictory to what exactly?
I think, in the later versions, the thing that kind of tricks a lot of people is the claim that "God is a necessary being." Obviously, some things can be necessraily true - but that necessity is always contingent on something. "Given that I see smoke, there must be a fire" (because the only thing that produces smoke is fire.... in this example anyway).
But that's a different kind of necessity than that ascribed to God. In this argument, God's existence is necessary without it being necessitated by anything.
And _that_, in my opinion, is far from obviously plausible. The first kind of necessity is based on observation or definition, and is like an implication: X→Y
God's necessity certainly has no observation in it, just the definition, and there is no predicate in the implication, it's just ...→Y.
That's why I think that at best, we don't know if God's existence is possible (so we can't say for sure that it's necessary or impossible).
Why didn't i find it last night 😭 im 4 hours away from my test
this video made the somewhat confusing argument clear to me, it is very interesting and easy to follow :), i think this argument is easily the best of the lot and seems very likely to be true
No...
Its the most absurd argument for some god...
Its a word game attempt to define God into existence...
A wordy wordy attempt to hide all the fallacies in it by using words and convoluted ideas to hide them
Excellent presentation and explanation. :)
A pretty fair treatment of the subject.
You are a genius.
Thank you so much for this video!! It has really helped me to understand the argument :)
Livi Venosa You're welcome. Good luck for the exams
any videos like this for epistemology ? (AQA spec)
Do you save the powerpoints you make, or notes? If so I was wondering if it'd be possible if you could make them available for us to save! I love these videos and the powerpoints are amazing! Thank you so much for making them
+Sorcha you could print screen the individual slides?
My AS level class love your clips! Thanks so much for sharing (C:
yeah!
My thoughts upon a few minutes pondering:
The mind cannot fathom infinity, therefore the mind cannot conceive something that in which nothing greater exists. The mind cannot reliably measure something infinitely great such as God.
"Greater" is ambiguous, and becomes an overworked word. Why is it greater for something to exist in reality than in just the mind? That seems to be an opinion-based, human opinion forced upon the logic.
Also, the realm of the mind is seeming to be separate from the realm of reality. This is slightly off topic, perhaps, but can't someone deduce: Since the mind exists in reality, and God exists in the mind, then God exists in reality -- therefore things can only exist in the mind and reality. This then becomes a question of scope, rather than existence vs non-existence.
Some interesting thoughts here. I particularly agree with your point on the use of the word "Greater". I've always considered it too subjective to have any meaningful place in a deductive argument. Obviously, one could try to define it more clearly, but without such a clear definition, it does remain ambiguous, as you say.
"greater" is subjective, but the real problem lies in "greatest." it's is relative term. it describes something within a finite set of objects with finite values. relative terms don't describe absolutes. finite terms don't define infinites.
*"it does remain ambiguous"*
as "greatest" does in describing an infinite. "of the numbers 3, 4 and 5, 5 has the greatest value;" what could it mean, upon adding infinity to that set, to then determine it to be "greatest" number within that set?! seems tautological.
KEvron
rather than saying no being could be greater thought of you could say it is the greatest conceivable being :)
Ella Frankcom That's true, but for the purpose of the proof by contradiction idea it is slightly easier to follow if you use the longer version.
MrMcMillanREvis There is a neat refutation of the version in which "God is the greatest conceivable being".
The argument goes as follows:
a) God is the greatest conceivable being and
b) Existance is greater than non-existance. Therefore
c) God exists.
In this argument, we have defined God as being the greatest thing in existance. This means, that whatever thing is the greatest thing in existance (after some arbitrary scale of greatness) is now called God. This means that all Biblical connotations with the word God has been removed, since we redefined him as "the greatest thing in existance".
Hi there, your videos are really helpful! Do you do Epistemology for AS?
audehtv Thanks for the comment. Epistemology is not part of the specification I teach at the moment.
MrMcMillanREvis thank you for replying! ^_^
I think doing Epistemology and Ethics would broaden your channel into a more philosophical channel for revision. It would do great and your videos are gold!!
can you make soul mind and body for philosophi as alv
you are a genius !
Existence in God's definition is also very peculiar. Because God doesn't exist like anything else. He doesn't participate in existence. He is the very existence (ipsum esse). The very question "does God exist?" makes no sense according to the Christian definition of God. We have existence but our existence can be taken away from us. This is a very complex subject.
Thank you! This really helped with my exam :)
wonderful quality!
I don't understan why the OA is taken seriously, how is it not simple equivocation?
Conflating real vs imagined existance and greatness.
I can see how the greatest conceivable being would have to be _imagined_ to exist, but why on earth would it have to _actually_ exist?
Despite the first rule of the Ontological argument being that everyone has an 'idea' of god in their mind, the argument was intended for people who already believed in god and not designed to convert people. It's purpose was simply to strengthen faith not create it. It has no merit for anything else as the definition comes from the Bible and the Bible is the proof that takes someone from blind faith to faith.
why can't be talk about the strengths
*It doesn't work!*
The premise of the argument is what is supposedly proven through the argument. Can it be more circular?
On what basis is "greatness" measured? What scale is used?
Beings and concepts of beings do not exist in the same respect anymore than trees and paintings of trees exist in the same respect.
If god exists and cannot cease to exist, then god is not omnipotent, and therefore is not the 'greatest' being conceivable.
I can conceive a god that is 'greater' than the biblical god since the god I conceive of does not experience jealousy nor seeks revenge, amongst other things, therefore the biblical god is not the greatest being conceivable.
Besides the obvious question as to why you have to use word games to try and prove that something actually exists vs not existing. Especially when a non self contradictory definition cannot even be made by those making the claim. In science, the most rudimentary place you are required to begin is creating set of basic parameters of what is being defined/tested and making sure it is internally consistent. If you cant even reach that most simple step, you have not even started trying to show if your hypothesis has any validity at all.
Thank you for this video. I look forward to watching your other videos. This argument seems so silly once you take a step back and follow through with thinking about it critically for a couple of minutes. To say something is true and in reality because I can imagine it!!? It takes on so many assumptions I think in the premises that it would only work on people who already believe in a god. The worlds argument makes more sense or at least I find it more reasonable. The argument about god and existence is self contradictory because it has a premise that god could not cease to exist but if god is all powerful amd can do anything even god could cease to exist based off that definition of god. If there was a god that created out universe, it in no way needs to be the most powerful incredible being imaginable. It just would need the properties, whatever they may be to create our universe.
bobkilla430 Some interesting points you raise. Since the argument is deductive if you can show that any of the assumptions are false then the argument fails. I think the assumption most open to question is whether we can know what God is like. Anselm assumes his definition of God is true, but Aquinas would say we can't know the nature of God.
mr mcmillan do u believe in god?
finbae l Based on what you've watched what would you guess? I deliberately try to stay neutral so I'm intrigued to know what viewers think.
yes i can tell you do, my guess would be yes as it's very christian of you to do these videos haha.. unless you're making a lot of moolah off of them!
finbae l But there are lots of people who make videos to help others who are not Christian. It is possible to be kind and generous without believing in God
can tell you're an RE teacher, was only joking! Thanks for the lesson though, sir. Anyway, do you believe in God?
finbae l I'm afraid I'm going to plead the 5th and keep quiet on that one! I like to stay neutral so people can make up their own mind. Don't want to be accused of brain-washing either way!
I loved the Santa argument. :)
Seriously though not sure how such smart people thought that these arguments of God's existence are worth anything.
James Eck Its an interesting one. I think they are the Marmite of Arguments. People tend to either think they are just pointless, or the most pure form of philosophy!
Thanks to stay neutral. This is gonna help my philosophical study a lot. May Allah guide you to the truth
SANTA ISN'T REAL?
Yup atheists seem to be right on this one, interesting video
+almost atheist Half the people cited in the video calling bullshit on this terrible argument are pious Christians. Failing to establish that God exists doesn't mean that they established that God DOESN'T exist.
Of course God's self-understanding of His own necessity must be a priori and therefore an "ontological argument." So, if NO version of the Ontological is True then God does not exist! (BTW, God does exist and so some version of the ontological argument must be true or else God could not understand Himself. Indeed God just is the Understanding of His self-necessity. However, perhaps it is a feature of God's essence that only He can have access to this argument. Perhaps...)
+Jesus Christ II I refuse to prove that I exist says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing. Oh, says man, but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn’t it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don’t. Q.E.D. Oh, I hadn’t thought of that, says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
- Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
You still need to prove a God before you come insert a God into any of this. You keep saying "if there is a God".
Santa's not real? THUMBS DOWN.
Sweer
Descartes rules out senses and reasons, yet he reasons the belief of a god. He is no more bigger than the liar in Hume.