I remember studying this argument at university. It's the most blatantly absurd argument for god that I'd ever read. So much so that I couldn't believe anyone would try to use it in a serious argument (WLC I'm looking at you). It's basically trying to define god into existence.
God is a perfect being. If He does not exist, He is powerless in reality, that is, He either exists or does not exist. By definition, God exists. In short, God is unconditional in existence (he cannot need conditions to exist) with the existence of His perfection. What are the forms?
Theoretical Bullshit makes a great point that the Christian god would not qualify as the greatest conceivable being. This is similar to a common argument of mine where some god could exist but for several reasons (such as the false creation stories in the Bible) the Christian god can be ruled out from the list of potential candidates for us to consider.
I'm always amazed when professional apologists use the ontological argument. Even, if you are unable to dissect it as beautifully as TBS did, it is hard to take seriously.
michael eashoo The word "God" was not used in the original language of the bible. Yahweh, Elohim, Ho Theos, or Ho Kurios were used instead as titles for this diety. If you want to learn about the etymology of the word "God", the info is available on the web. _"what are your thoughts on u having to think_ *(BigFoot)* _EXITS. before u think_ *(BigFoot)* _does not EXIST?"_ *I don't believe your claim that a God exists.*
michael eashoo Yahweh, Elohim, Ho Theos, Ho Kurios, God, Lord, Creator, or whatever else you like, are just names for something from an ancient mythology that is akin to the thousands of names of gods from other ancient mythologies. Regarding BigFoot: _"well. i first took in the thoughts of what people were saying. and i said, this might be. i need to learn more."_ Well, I'm okay with that approach, and maybe you believe in things like BigFoot without sufficient evidence as well. But by YOUR earlier reasoning, you have to think Bigfoot exits before you think that it doesn't. Or replace "BigFoot" with something that you personally are certain does not exist. _"it is not up to me to make u believe HE EXISTS. that is between u and HIM."_ I'll rephrase: *I do not believe the claim that a gods or gods exist.* … and that's up to me, because a god or gods are indistinguishable from the imaginary.
+Zed Mann Elohim is the Hebrew word for "god" or "God", Yahweh a kind of nasme like Zeus or Odin,Theos and Kurios (or rather Kyrios)are Greek words for "god"and "Lord", as a part of the Bible was witten in Greek,some in Hebrew ans Aramaic and non in English it's not surprising, that the word "god" doesn't turn up. is it?
Felix Rodriguez The existence of a necessary being is like trying to prove reason using reason, it will always begs the question because it is the nature of reason to beg reason and it is the nature of a necessary being to be "begged" when trying to prove the existence of YOU for instance, or any non necessary being. If anything non necessary exists(YOU and ME) it follows that a necessary being has to exists or else an infinite regress is in progress, which is absurd. Better a necessary being than an infinite regress since in fact we ACTUALLY exist, so an infinite regress does not obtains and necessary being necessarily obtains!
Felix Rodriguez Mostly I was pointing out the absurdity of asserting that existence is necessarily greater than non-existence - nobody alive knows what's it's like to not exist, so nobody alive can make any claims about what it's like to not exist, including whether or not it's 'greater' (whatever that means) to exist.
Felix Rodriguez God prior to anything existing. Therefore the argument is from God to us not from us to God. Let's get the definition of GOD correct before we make this huge mistake.
oh, yes...cookies are in my mind too brother! I love your vids. You're very intelligent, and you don't take your views to extremes, or perform erroneous and fallacious acts designed to (but ultimately fail to) descredit any statement to the contrary of your own personal beliefs. You simply follow abstract concepts to the closest things we as humans can fairly label as "logical conclusions" and for that you have my deep respect. Keep it up.
@yedrow The fallacy od the excluded middle describes excluding the middle, not including it.... consider a vague property such as "baldness." In determining whether a person is "bald" or "not bald," where is the line drawn? At 10 hairs, or 10000 hairs? The excluded middle is, in such an instance, actually more useful than the bivalence encapsulating your analysis.... And, as I noted before, the grain of sand is simply symbolic here; we could as well apply this frame to any conceptualisation.
i used this today in a disagreement with a religious friend. the disagreement was not settled but i did win this point. Thank you scott for being so smart and generous with you wisdom. jeff wolf
In order to make the argument clearer I have worked into what I believe are the necessary presuppositions. - Assertions 1) Greatness exists in reality 2) Concepts exist in reality (although are different from that which it is a concept of) 3) Greatness can also exist in concepts (Beauty is a great making property - the concept of beauty is more beautiful then the concept of ugliness, therefore the concept of beauty is greater then the concept of ugliness) 4) You cannot conceive of something that is greater then that which is the greatest. - Definition That which is the greatest is God - Based on the assertions and the Definition the reasoning follows A concept (if associated with it the claim that it reflects a true independent existence) is greater if it not only exists as a concept but also reflects an independent reality, because truth is a great making property. Necessary non-contingent existence (can be conceived) and is greater then contingent existence therefore that which is the greatest has necessary non-contingent existence. Because if that which is the greatest does not have necessary non-contingent existences I would be able to conceive of something greater then that which is the greatest. If that which is the greatest only existed as a concept it would not have necessary non-contingent existence and therefore not be the greatest. Therefore that which is the greatest must exist independently of the concept of itself. Therefore not only does the concept of God exist, but God exists.
Jonah Lapensee _" truth is a great making property."_ So, given the correspondence theory of truth (which is the standard meaning of "truth", ie, corresponding to reality) why couldn't you just make this even simpler argument: 1. Truth is a great-making property of a concept. 2. The concept of God is the greatest concept [entailing great-making properties]. 3. Therefore, the concept of God is true. [ie, God exists]
I would agree, but it seems to me the video is arguing against the correspondence theory of truth, and would say that the concept of God is true as a concept but that does not mean in reality.
Jonah Lapensee I doubt that the argument would be rejected on the basis of the theory of truth. Rather, I think the counter argument would be to distinguish between the "greatest conceivable being and the "greatest actual being" - or between the "greatest concept" and the "greatest true concept."
1. Greatness only exists in our minds and is wholly subjective. It is not something that can be found in reality. Once all minds cease to exist the concept of greatness will also cease to exist. 2. Concepts only exists in our minds. Things only exists in reality. Sometimes we can find things that represent those concepts in reality. 3. Beauty and ugliness like greatness only exists in our mind and is wholly subjective. 4. There's no objective standard for greatness so saying anything is the greatest is meaningless. 5. Saying a god is the greatest is meaningless because there is no standard of what greatness entails.
Anselm clearly does not mean by God being conceived in the mind as him/her literally existing in the mind, that is clearly a straw man and a naive statement. Plus, all the beings that no greater can be conceived of (the greatest island, greatest man etc.) are all contingent beings, so there existence or non-existence are not necessary, where as the being that Anselm argues for (God) is a necessary being and a being of pure actuality (as opposed to potentiality) so those counter examples won't work with this argument. Personally i'm a non-believer and my gut feeling tells me that somehow it is unsound, but so far no one has come up with a water tight way of proving it unsound (the closest was probably Kant). Bertrand Russell, a staunch atheist and one of the brightest logicians/philosophers to live, admitted to the strength of this argument and difficulty in proving it unsound,
It is not a straw man. The specific words that you use in a logical argument are very important. We can only go on what Anselm said and he said, quite clearly..."God exists in the mind." If this is not precisely what Anselm meant, it's his own fault for not giving more specific definitions and clarifying his terms. Also, he addressed the 'Necessary being' and showed that it's meaningless. This is an argument that attempts to demonstrate the existence of God. To then claim within the argument that God is a 'necessary being' means you're using the conclusion OF the argument as a premise IN the argument, in other words..."You must assume that God exists in order to prove that God exists.".....You went even further by using the word 'actuality', which again, assumes that which you are describing is 'actual'. Personally, i find the Ontological argument intellectually dishonest because instead of merely asserting that God exists, it instead asks the opponent to acknowledge that God is great and then merely asserts that existing is a necessary part of God's greatness, and then acts like it's won the argument. It tries to just define God into existence by adding the word 'exists' to God's definition, via the word 'greatness'. It's another assertion of blind faith, couched in the language of logic, but like most apologetic arguments that purport to be logical, it's anything but.
_"Anselm clearly does not mean by God being conceived in the mind as him/her literally existing in the mind, that is clearly a straw man and a naive statement."_ I don't think it is. I ripped the argument out of Wikipedia just for kicks. Let me try to write it out for you. The first copy is the original, the second will spell it out when we're talking about concepts. 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.. 2. The idea of God exists in the mind. 3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. 4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being-that which exists in reality. 5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God. 6. Therefore, God exists. -------------------------- 1. Our concept of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.. 2. The concept of God exists in the mind. 3. A being that both exists in reality and has a conceptual representation in a mind is greater than the concept alone. 4. If God is only a concept, then we can form a new concept of a greater being that also manifests in reality. 5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God. 6. Therefore, a concept of a God that manifests in reality exists. Which should make it clear that the argument is fallacious, assuming I didn't make any mistakes rewriting it. Anyway, TBS was just pointing out that one of the the problems with the argument is that it conflates concepts and existing things in a way that has an easy time of sneaking past human reasoning. If the argument was valid it really has to make the equivalence between existing things and concepts in some way and stating that as "God exists in the mind" is a simple way to do that.
Gnomefro The reason that Anselm doesn't believe that God literally exists in the mind is quite simple. First and foremost, Anselm is a Platonist to the core, the Platonic theory of forms considers formal reality (the abstract realm of forms) to be eternal, unchanging and incorruptible as opposed to the material world, what exists in the real world is a mere degraded image of the true forms, note that the forms themselves don't exist in the material world including our minds but in higher abstract realm. Augustine before Anselm interpreted Plato's forms as manifestation of god himself, for in the Judeo-Christian tradition god was unchangeable, incorruptible and eternal (just like Plato's forms), so like Plato Augustine believed that the forms were the highest manifestation of reality but he differed from Plato in that he attributed the forms to being part of God, so for him also the true forms themselves couldn't exist in the corruptible and changeable material world. Anselm was a staunch Platonist, the last thing he would say is god literally exists in the mind, to be generous to his argument, he says that whatever is understood exists in the understanding. Just as the plan of a painting that has yet to be executed already exists in the understanding of the painter, so that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding, but if it exists in the understanding, it must also exist in reality. So the NOTION of the idea or form of that being exists not the being itself. I'm not saying the argument is valid, its just that your attacking it from the wrong direction, the best counter arguments to it are offered by Kant and Hume who never trivialized by saying that Anselm is saying that god literally exists in the mind because they know he's a Platonist and simply would never imply that. That argument Kant gives against it is that you can't predicate existence as an essence of a thing (which Kant believes Anselm is doing), Hume argues that the argument can't be proved for the simple fact that a priori arguments are not demonstrable.
***** It seems likely that Drew is aware of that, and you didn't understand what he meant. Platonists assert that abstract concepts are actually 'things' that exist in the third realm. As a concept, it is quite unlikely to be true. But, even if what Sam contends were true, even if that's not what Anselm meant, taking his third premiss from wikipedia: "3.A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind." The equivocation is STILL there, and TBS's objection is still perfectly valid. "Beings" do not exist as ideas. CONCEPTS exist as ideas...concepts OF beings. The problem with this objection is that the wording of Anselms argument betrays this. The second premiss isn't 'God exists as an abstract object in the third realm', it's 'God exists in the mind', this is because he must have known many reject platonism, and don't think that abstract objects have their own place where they exist. However, even if you grant Sams interpretation, then the newly constructed argument pointing to what he meant. If Anselm did not mean that god exists in the mind, if he was only referring to the rational statement 'god can be a concept in the mind', then the ontological argument is a non sequitur. 1> God is, by definition, the greatest being conceivable 2> God is a concept in the mind 3> To exist as a concept in the mind and in reality is greater than to exist as a concept in the mind alone 4> Therefor, God exists in reality as well as being a concept in the mind, if he did not he would not be the greatest being conceivable. Firstly, this makes the question begging in 1 clear. If you're trying to prove god is a being and not only a concept, you can't start with the assertion that he is a being and work from there. Premiss 1 states he is a being and premiss 2 states he is also a concept. The only way it's not immediately fallacious is to read it as saying that AS A CONCEPT, the conception of god is one of the greatest possible being. Which is a bit redundant but you get the idea. Secondly, you have god being a concept in the mind. However, no matter how great a concept may be, it does not follow that the concept must refer to something that exists. I can be thinking of the worlds most existent apple, and it is more existent to exist in reality and as a concept than to exist as a concept alone, but that does not matter. 3 does not follow from 2. If your argument starts from 'god is a concept', and tries to use the greatness of that concept to prove it must exist, you do not have a logical progression. There is nothing about greatness that can substantiate concepts into being, and nothing about greatness that is proof that a concept is pointing to something existent. Another way to put this is 'the conception of greatness has no relation to existence'. If your argument starts from 'god is a being', then you have inserted your conclusion into your first premiss and you have committed a fallacy of circular reasoning. Finally, if you argue that beings exist as concepts you have committed the fallacy of equivocation, as it is not the beings that exist as concepts, it is the concepts of beings that exist, which is a very different thing. Philosophy is a very weak point of mine, so I hope that didn't drag on too much, I just wanted to be as clear as I could.
@XxVINCEROxX Apparently, Plantinga feels that the entire argument's soundness depends on how the interlocutor in the conversation feels about the possibility premise. and states that since there's no proof AGAINSt it, its chances of being right are 50/50. The common objection, which is a technically correct objection, is that the possibility premise relies on axion S5 of Modal logic, and words the argument in a way to make 'possibly necessary' actually just 'necessary'.
There are many things wrong with this argument but the main on is this: The very claim "God exists" is non-sensical because it not true by definition and is therefore synthetic, not analytic, but we have never experienced a God so even this claim is not supported. God is something which has a certain set of defined properties (although this doesn't mean it has to exist just like e.g. a unicorn). Adding "exists" on the end is illogical because this claims that the definition of God includes something that exists outside of our own minds and this is not necessarily true. For example: God is perfect is true because the idea of "perfection" is included in the definition of a God. Existence, however, is not because we have no experience of God existing in the physical world. This makes the entire argument fall apart before it even gets of the ground.
@Anomalous59 As for those fundamental questions about the nature of existence being addressed by the OA... Well, as an example, is existence a Thing or is it an incident? If existence is a Thing, is it a conscious Thing? If it is a conscious Thing, is it then right to admit the possibility of it being personally involved in the activities of the things that exist?
1.) Our understanding of God is a being that which no greater can be conceived. 2.) The idea of God exists in the mind. 3.) A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. 4.) If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being-that which exists in reality. 5.) We cannot imagine something that is greater than God. 6.) Therefore, God exists. It seems to me that you have seriously misunderstood and even taken out of context this argument. This argument is not claiming that God literally exists as a being within the mind. Rather, this argument is stating that God is the greatest conceivable being. Whether He exists or not, God is defined as the maximally greatest being. He does not have to literally exist to have this attribute, just as Harry Potter has the attribute of being a wizard, yet he does not actually exist. Secondly, this argument does not commit the fallacy of equivocation. As I stated earlier, this argument is not trying to state that God exists as a literal being within the mind, but that if God is to be the maximally greatest being, then He must be more than a mere concept. He must exist in reality. This arguments states that if God is merely a conception (existing in the mind), He is not the greatest conceivable being. Why? Because a being that would be greater than the concept of God would be God actually existing. Therefore, God exists. Also in support of this is the fact that premise two states that the *idea* of God exists in the mind. Well, an entity actually existing within reality is greater than the same entity existing as an idea, concept, or thought. This is the heart of the argument. So, the ontological argument hasn't really committed said fallacy. Thirdly, God is a maximally great being in that He is transcendent of everything, as demanded by His very nature. He is not contingent upon anything for His own existence, including human perceptions such as "greatness" or "perfection". If He created the Universe then he must--as demanded by His very nature in being the creator of the Universe--transcend all properties of the Universe and the Universe itself. This is what is meant by maximally great. That there is no being greater (*not* as in more perfect) than God. Transcending the properties of existence and non-existence would make such an entity greater than an entity who is bound by these properties, thus, God is the greatest conceivable being. It seems that *you* are the one who has committed the fallacy of equivocation for the word "greater". It seems that you have misunderstood the premises of the argument, and took them out of their context. You misunderstood the definition of exist, as the context in which its being used here is that He exists within the mind, meaning He is a concept, not that He literally exists as a being within the mind. It seems that you have, again, committed the fallacy of equivocation.
The greatest doughnut in the world contains the property of existence. Therefore I'm licking my lips for that doughnut. Still waiting. Stiiiilllll waiiiitinnnnngg.
"3.) A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind." It totally depends on the "being", and it also depends on what you mean by "greater". If, for example, the "being" you have in mind is, say, "Yahweh", and if "greater" means "better", then I contend that, no, it would NOT be "better" that "Yahweh" exist (or any other being exist who would drown the entire planet) in reality as well as in the mind. We're better off that such a being only exists in our minds.
***** By "being" we mean something that can exist, either in reality or as a concept. By "greater" we mean more capable; that nothing can transcend God. God is the greatest being in existence. A being that exists in reality is more capable than a being that exists only in the mind. As well, your personal belief that it is not a good thing that Yahweh exists or that Yahweh is not better is no grounds for a argument.
Xenophilius "God does not have mutually exclusive attributes." So, your conception of "God" doesn't have any mutually exclusive attributes. This is good news. So, you'd then agree that if a person harbored a conception of a "God" that was, for example, both "infinitely just" and "infinitely merciful", that this person would be harboring an impossible concept of "God". Yes? "Secondly, God has no trouble actualizing His will." At best, your version of the ontological argument points to a "being" that is "more capable" than any other. It does not necessarily point to a specific "God", and thus, no specific "God" has been established, as far I can see.
@XxVINCEROxX And when I say "I go to people like Sam Harris" I mean I go to people I've seen in debates, I go to people who write a lot of books that I'm able to get rather easily. If I want to get a peer reviewed philosophical paper, I have to do some digging. How about Daniel Dennett? He got his doctorate of philosophy at Oxford, I read his works, is that good enough?
P1- God is the greatest possible being, who created everything P2- Creation by a being that DOES exist, is by definition more mundane and therefore less great, than creation by a being who DOES NOT exist. Conclusion- To be the GREATEST POSSIBLE being, it's ontologically necessary that god does NOT exist.
But what distinguishes maximally great trees and plants from regular ones? What specific characteristics would they have (without simply putting 'maximally great' in front of them since this would lack clarity).
@Anomalous59 I guess I do have yet to see the equivocation, because the issue here is NOT that existence is a predicate to greatness. It's that existence is a property of existence.
@yedrow Not all possibilities, but a single actuality -- yes. an apple is both apple and atoms, and one may abstractly conceive the apple without the atoms, but one does not then fully conceive anything, but merely uses a representation to stand in for what is not fully understood (and to the human mind simply not fully understandable).... this is not the kind of understanding necessary for day-to-day functioning, but simply the kind ontologically necessary for the argument to function....
@XxVINCEROxX But it's what I'm referring to. Begging the question like that is, in my mind, something that makes the argument unsound as a whole. After all, if it's going to be sound, it has to be sound in ALL of its premises, and begging the question, is very unsound. It's not necessarily a flaw, sure, but it's not necessarily a strong point either. This is why Plantinga himself said it's not always a strong argument for God, depending on the participants in the argument.
@XxVINCEROxX I'm not talking about conclusive, I'm talking about practical knowledge, an evidence given basis for the assumption of cake yumminess. If one must steal to get the cake, then this 'maximally greeat' being isn't so great, if they are forcing you into a situation where oyu must steal to obtain the cake which is yummy. If greatness of a being is more subjective than yumminess, then there's no way to assume the ontological argument's premises anyway.Something is great if it's appeasing.
@yedrow What in our studies of our Universe makes an "activating agent" necessary to explain any characteristics of our Universe? And for your elucidation, time is a function of space, and so there was no "infinity" of existence prior to the existence of space, which required Creation (and indeed there need not be, for energy alone existing outside of time and space will still function as a quantum computer, and enough of it would be powerful enough to create our Universe and its governing laws.
I want to second the comment below from "Rauron", thanks for making the video. It helped alot in my understanding of how screwed up this argument is. I appreciate the hard work and deep thought of philosophers but I am glad that is not the road I am going to take in life.
@XxVINCEROxX I completely agree that the debates don't serve to come up with an actually good debate. BUT, it DOES put the debaters in the public eye, AND it shows you how intellectually competent they are, which is a good starting point.
(continued from below) as is the way of Absurdism, in literature, like the story "Bartleby the Scrivener". Which one do you think is going to live a happier, and not only happier, but a more morally structured life as a better human being? So someone believes, but when he dies it turns out their really is not such thing, so what? He ends up like the rest, decomposing matter in the earth. On the chance that it does exist, the non-believer "burns in hell". Which one would you rather be?
I have a third problem with that last bit. I do not see how God is more necessary than cookies. I just discovered your channel today, and I've enjoyed your ideas very much. I do hope you continue to make more in the future, even if the long hiatuses are necessary (and, presumably, also more necessary than God).
@yedrow You are shifting definitions midstride.... lawless as in "lacking moral governance" is simply not the same thing as lawless as in "lacking consistent physics" -- a neat trick, but only if you're not caught doing it. Hence, an amoral Universe may most certainly have predictable outcomes.
@yedrow The question is not whether you are closer to God or the chimp, the question is which are you closer to being -- if you had to draw a line with the chimp on one end and God on the other, where are you on that line? Are you more chimplike, or more Godlike? If you were to draw that line from amoebas to God, with you and the chimp on it, how close then would you be to the chimp. Oh, and by the way, chimps have been observed to act remorseful after doing bad things (even dogs will do that).
Excellent use of logic. Anselm's argument has driven me nuts for its weakness since I first encountered it years ago. Your's was the best criticism I've seen and very easy to follow. My usual reply has been that there have been things that exist in the mind that have been proven not to exist, such as the 19th century concept of ether. I've also pointed out that the christian god idea does not exist as a normal noun. It exists as an explanation for what used to the unexplainable.
@THEEVANTHETOON Y The argument omniscience and free will incomparably has yet to be reconciled by any theist.> I never got a response to the question Is there a theory which reconciles free will with an omniscient god?
@Anomalous59 I'm not sure what you think this is showing about the OA because that is not how the OA is structured as an argument. It would be more like "Imagine the greatest flying creature possible (this we would call a "dragon")..." and then require you to argue for the characteristics of what is the greatest possible flying creature. Whatever that subsequent entity is, it would be a "dragon". And given the nature of the subject, such a maximally great flyer probably does exist.
@THEEVANTHETOON The B-theory of time is a term, given to one of two positions taken by theorists, in the philosophy of time. The labels, A-theory and B-theory, are derived from the analysis of time and change developed by Cambridge philosopher J. M. E. McTaggart in The Unreality of Time, in which events are ordered via a tensed A-series or a tenseless B-series.
@XxVINCEROxX Because he used the 'shotgun' technique. The fact is if you don't refute every single argument in your rebuttal to WLC, he can just point and laugh at your inability to refute all of his points, laugh at your attempts to refute the points, as well as point out you didn't provide the argument he declared you are required to have. At that point, WHAT can you do?
@yedrow Why would I have to demonstrate the persistence of complexity -- I've only claimed it exists to this point.... Naturally, a claim of persistence is supported by our scientific observations and by our own experience of technological advance....
There is an invisible, PINK, Omnipotent unicorn on all of your roofs. For a unicorn to be PINK, and omnipotent it must exist, Therefore The invisible PINK, omnipotent unicorn on all of your roofs exists!
@Crownw3 Also, to conclude. I would like to point out that this is about logic as WELL as philosophy. So he could very well fail at philosophy, but that wouldn't even take away from his deconstructing of a logical argument.
@Anomalous59 ...For example, there seems to be a reasonable argument to be made that beauty lies in moderate and coherent sets of relations (i.e.: the golden ratio, symmetry, etc.). If that is true, then yes the most beautiful thing does actually exist because it would be a mathematical concepts and, as I argued, mathematical concepts are amongst those class of conceptual abstracts that DO actually exist by their own definition...
You didn't include the link to "random necessarily" in the description like you said. Fortunately it appears in the list of videos. The greatest problem with the ontological argument that philosophers have indicated is not that it tries to "define" God into existence but that "existence" is not a property of a thing. Great work. 😎👍
@frieddumplin All the argument asserts is that those that don't believe God exists as defined as the "greatest conceivable being" simply don't understand what the concept of God is. People that advocate the argument would say something along the lines, "you just don't understand what God means." A good criticism of the argument is Foucault's thoughts on linguistic relativity.
@XxVINCEROxX Even subjective things can be determined to a 'knowledgable' degree without direct personal experience. If I took a poll using an unbiased method wherein I asked if Chocolate cake was yummy, and I had an overwhelming majority of people who claimed the positive, then BAM, that's enough to have practical knowledge. I now have a foundation for my knowledge of Chocolate Cake's yumminess. So no, it doesn't still hold. :)
@Anomalous59 Well, the video's maker actually gave a great example with reasons why the Evangelical Christian God (or certain concepts thereof) might not be worth considering particularly great. There are better God concepts out there. For me, it does help reframe a concept of God as basically the predicate for existence. Or Existence, as the case may be. Hence why I take a dim view of the whole "God is a cosmic sasquatch" meme, which is also quite banal.
@AllenQuatermain2de Being that the argument is a Reductio ad absurdum the entire point is to agree with the opposing party to create a paradox. P2 is making a statement and at the same time asking a question to the opponent. Already assuming that God doesn't exist in reality, if he did exist in reality would that make him greater than just being a fictitious concept in our thoughts? The opponent must agree or they undermine their own position that the concept of God is meaningless.
@THEEVANTHETOON You also never answered my question .Is there any theory of free will which could be considered compatible with a being perfectly knowing the future?
@XxVINCEROxX Oh? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is his cream and berries so to speak, he's stuck with that despite just about nobody except people presupposed to agree with him find it to be a valid and sound argument. It preys on the common sense of the people who hear about it, and ACTUALLY violates Identity when it comes to philosophy when someone brings up that 'things' daren't caused to exist, identities are, and there's a difference between causing an identity to exist, and material.
@Anomalous59 But the OA does not fail in this respect because it does not say that any one or another particular God concept is the maximally great being. It's saying that whatever the maximally great being is (which I argue is Being itself), THAT'S God.
@mrcusterd why would the opponent of the argument have to take the position that the concept of god is meaningless? and why would agreeing or disagreeing with P2 effect whether or not the concept of god has meaning?
@PanDeism In the sense I'm speaking, and I'm not an expert at these concepts, the law of non-contradiction essentially asserts that a thing is completely itself without contradiction (a cannot be both a and not at at the same time). The law of the excluded middle asserts that no thing is exclusively definable, an apple is both and apple and atoms and an orange is both an orange and atoms and both are atoms so where does one really end and the other begin.
Thanks for that T.B, I had previously disregarded the O argument in a knee jerk type reaction to something comparable to a steaming turd ... not realizing until watching this video that I could potentially have been cornered, finding myself pathetically stammering in a search for words on account of a certain lack of sound rebuttal. ... Now bring em on baby!
"Who will validate that after you are gone? You will be dispersed matter. Will worms care that you didn't waste your life? Will you? Will anyone?" This is the truth about this reality REGARDLESS of whether or not some sort of deity exists.
@yedrow First, I have made no claim of an "infinite" progression -- if the purpose of our Universe is to provide to its Creator some flavor of the experiences it can not have in its native form, then a single sufficiently diverse and complex Universe ought to provide all the experience needed (consider the amount of experience generated in the sum of human experience up to now alone, excluding even the possibility of intelligent life in other galaxies, and our own future evolution)....
@XxVINCEROxX Yes, the poster boy for debate, because of his tactics that are unbeatable, UNLESS the debate is about one of the arguments in particular. Have oyu noticed that if a debate he's in just addresses one of his arguments, by the end of the debate he just starts babbling about how he's experienced God through the Holy Spirit? As if that's supposed to mean anything?
problems with plantinga's version (using wiki): P1: an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being is not logically possible (meaning of "possible world"?) P2: relevance? P3: see P1 P4: attempt at deriving an "is" from a "could" P5: see P4 But to the point: it doesn't matter what version you use(although the premises and objections are different) the goal of this argument is to define god into existence. it's the same as saying: "god exists, therefor god exists"
On objection 2: How I understand the OA, for right or wrong, is that greatness is defined in relation to the nature of the thing. The greatest possible square is one with 4 equal lines linked by 4 90 degree angles. In other words: the squariest square, and the squariest square is simply the definition of a square, because it is a conceptual abstract that actually does exist by definition...
@yedrow As an example, we know gravity exists (or if you disagree, we know something exists which we seem to experience as gravity) -- and so, it must come from somewhere, and it is reasonable to suppose that it was created by some entity. If we suppose this, such entity must be at least powerful enough to create gravity -- but that is all we can know of it from that one circumstance.... nothing about gravity requires its Creator to be infinite, or have a triple-personality, or to judge humans.
Great video ,but Religious apologist do not use Anselms version on the Ontological these days. William Lane Craig uses Alvin Plantinga version ,which still is fallacious on its own merits ,but differs from the default position of existence. But Craig always uses the the word "possible". This keeps the posibilties open for their constructed argument.
@Calenfeyn41 Anselm CLEARLY with his premises went BEYOND the idea of a conceptual being. The argument essentially is "As long as we can concieve something that is maximally great, it then exists." It's a concept being arbitraily promoted to outside being of existence.
the sad thing is: modern philosophers still love the ontological argument. they think it works, the think it saves the day, and some(and this is far too many no matter what) think it's the only inteliigent argument needed. you don't need anything else
@PanDeism Why would we experience "most profoundly" that which we caused others to feel? What if I intend to make someone feel good/bad and achieve the opposite? How do you retain your person and have that personage be dependent on the reaction of others to it? What of soldiers in long wars defending their homeland? What of the two sides cheering for you, each canceling out the other in their reaction for you?
@PanDeism By "activating agent" I mean that which caused the timeless to begin to operate under the rules of time? If you accept the BB, and I do, prior to the BB we had a singularity. By my reasoning space-time couldn't exist in such a singularity since space-time are little more than perceptions of expansion and either the universe was always expanding (again negating space-time) or it was a singularity that existed without time. What caused it to stop being that way. Same for god.
"The problem is the Pricean Counterargument which I've defined as an argument that perfectly counters the ontological argument. For it to be perfect it must be a) logically irrefutable, b) confirmed by all available evidence and c) already in your pocket and the pocket of every theism so I don't have to explain it to each of you. If it lacks any of these qualities then it's not the argument I defined. Therefore you must have a perfect counterargument to the ontological argument in your pocket. Please check your pockets and if such an argument is there admit your ontological argument is wrong. If it's not STILL admit that it's wrong because I used the same arguments for it's existence as you did for God's and I was wrong."
true true, which is why i find it rather curious that people believe the ontological argument is persuasive even though you can simply reject it purely on the fact that it is ontological, something that has no connection to reality can never be shown to have any relevance there.
@XxVINCEROxX Plantinga himself says his argument is subjective, so you're not gonna get anywhere by pointing to his and going, "But this one works!" The thing is, if an argument IS sound, then that counts as a logical proof for the existence of God, since it right now doesn't count as a logical proof for god, then it's obviously noty sound.
Am I late to the party? Anyway, a fifth(?) problem with the argument would hide behind the very first premise: I call this the _mathematical objection_ to the ontological argument, because it touches a little bit of ordered set theory. Notice the wording "greater" which insinuates that the set of conceivable ideas is somehow ordered and that the idea of "God" would somehow be defined as the maximal element of this ordered set. And here is the thing; in order to define something and build a meaningful argument around something you define, you must first explain why your definition even makes sense. In this case, defining something as the "maximum element" in any regard, Anselm would first have to explain why the set of conceivable ideas is ordered in the first place and secondly, he would have to show that this set actually _has_ a maximal element, since ordered sets do not necessarily have that right from the start. A sixth(?) problem hides behind the third premise: Besides the obvious equivocation "existing as well in the mind as in reality" what this premise seems to express is that the concept of God is, by its "greatness", automatically connected to an existing object called "God". But in real life I cannot just go around and arbitrarily connect a concept to any object, I must ensure that my concept of an object and the object itself are congruent. Otherwise I could say: "Haha, behold! I have a concept of a God in my mind and I connect it to... erm... this pencil! Now this pencil can forgive my sins and grant me eternal life after death!" I mean, you _could_ do that, but that would not get you very far, would it? So there must already be an object called "God" and I must experience this object in order to form an idea about that object, which I then can connect to that very object. The third premise therefore assumes the final conclusion.
"Value" can be defined in terms of "capacity to effect change". In that case, power and knowledge be both objective and valuable. Again, you are amazingly confined in your own assertions. It could be defined thus: Under any relevant circumstances, success depends on having X over not having it. However, even that is conceding too much. You said "it is of paramount importance", but that presupposes the idea that one way of debating is "better" than another.
@Calenfeyn41 I find it funny when we attack the premises exactly as they are worded, yet people still cry "Strawman!" It's absolutely asinine. If Premise 2 says "God exists in the mind" then we're going to attack the concept of "god existing in the mind" That's not a strawman. Same for the other premises. A strawman would be if we gave the incorrect premises and argued those, but we didn't. If you WANT us to argue Plantinga's model, which actually isn't sound EITHER, then do so.
This guy is an absolute champ. Great that someone on his platform us so interested and articulate about this stuff. Nice work mate.
I remember studying this argument at university. It's the most blatantly absurd argument for god that I'd ever read. So much so that I couldn't believe anyone would try to use it in a serious argument (WLC I'm looking at you). It's basically trying to define god into existence.
God is a perfect being. If He does not exist, He is powerless in reality, that is, He either exists or does not exist. By definition, God exists. In short, God is unconditional in existence (he cannot need conditions to exist) with the existence of His perfection. What are the forms?
SHORT VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
Does the almighty God exist?
Of course! If he didn't exist he wouldn't be almighty!
I'd enjoy seeing you tackle Plantinga's/WLC's Modal version of the Ontological Argument, or have you done so already? If so, please let us know...
Wouldn't a god who could find a flaw in the argument be *EVEN GREATER*?
LOL loving the xkcd reference
aviatortrevor - Or one that holds the world record for eating the most skateboards.
Aw, the unicorn ate my cookie.
It was the greatest, most tasty and beautiful thing ever.
And it happened in my mouth.
I am a Christian, and I thoroughly enjoyed this video. Thank you for such a level-headed, clear, and concise rebuttal.
The Ontological argument is only marginally better than the 'Look at the Tree' Argument.
No, because at least one finds beaty in a tree, rather than trying to extract some for intellectually bankrupt theistic BS
Theoretical Bullshit makes a great point that the Christian god would not qualify as the greatest conceivable being. This is similar to a common argument of mine where some god could exist but for several reasons (such as the false creation stories in the Bible) the Christian god can be ruled out from the list of potential candidates for us to consider.
I'm always amazed when professional apologists use the ontological argument. Even, if you are unable to dissect it as beautifully as TBS did, it is hard to take seriously.
michael eashoo
The word "God" was not used in the original language of the bible. Yahweh, Elohim, Ho Theos, or Ho Kurios were used instead as titles for this diety.
If you want to learn about the etymology of the word "God", the info is available on the web.
_"what are your thoughts on u having to think_ *(BigFoot)* _EXITS. before u think_ *(BigFoot)* _does not EXIST?"_
*I don't believe your claim that a God exists.*
michael eashoo
Yahweh, Elohim, Ho Theos, Ho Kurios, God, Lord, Creator, or whatever else you like, are just names for something from an ancient mythology that is akin to the thousands of names of gods from other ancient mythologies.
Regarding BigFoot:
_"well. i first took in the thoughts of what people were saying. and i said, this might be. i need to learn more."_
Well, I'm okay with that approach, and maybe you believe in things like BigFoot without sufficient evidence as well. But by YOUR earlier reasoning, you have to think Bigfoot exits before you think that it doesn't. Or replace "BigFoot" with something that you personally are certain does not exist.
_"it is not up to me to make u believe HE EXISTS. that is between u and HIM."_
I'll rephrase: *I do not believe the claim that a gods or gods exist.* … and that's up to me, because a god or gods are indistinguishable from the imaginary.
+Zed Mann Elohim is the Hebrew word for "god" or "God", Yahweh a kind of nasme like Zeus or Odin,Theos and Kurios (or rather Kyrios)are Greek words for "god"and "Lord", as a part of the Bible was witten in Greek,some in Hebrew ans Aramaic and non in English it's not surprising, that the word "god" doesn't turn up. is it?
Bob Ross doesn't paint happy little trees; he paints paintings… of happy little trees.
Maybe non-existence is greater than existence. Maybe to not exist is just AMAZING, and all of us poor existing creatures just don't know it. =D
xD
Erik non existence cannot be AMAZING since there is no consciousness to be amaze with at all! Unless you are being sarcastic...
Felix Rodriguez The existence of a necessary being is like trying to prove reason using reason, it will always begs the question because it is the nature of reason to beg reason and it is the nature of a necessary being to be "begged" when trying to prove the existence of YOU for instance, or any non necessary being. If anything non necessary exists(YOU and ME) it follows that a necessary being has to exists or else an infinite regress is in progress, which is absurd. Better a necessary being than an infinite regress since in fact we ACTUALLY exist, so an infinite regress does not obtains and necessary being necessarily obtains!
Felix Rodriguez Mostly I was pointing out the absurdity of asserting that existence is necessarily greater than non-existence - nobody alive knows what's it's like to not exist, so nobody alive can make any claims about what it's like to not exist, including whether or not it's 'greater' (whatever that means) to exist.
Felix Rodriguez God prior to anything existing. Therefore the argument is from God to us not from us to God. Let's get the definition of GOD correct before we make this huge mistake.
oh, yes...cookies are in my mind too brother!
I love your vids. You're very intelligent, and you don't take your views to extremes, or perform erroneous and fallacious acts designed to (but ultimately fail to) descredit any statement to the contrary of your own personal beliefs. You simply follow abstract concepts to the closest things we as humans can fairly label as "logical conclusions" and for that you have my deep respect. Keep it up.
Refreshingly clear solid thinking.
@yedrow The fallacy od the excluded middle describes excluding the middle, not including it.... consider a vague property such as "baldness." In determining whether a person is "bald" or "not bald," where is the line drawn? At 10 hairs, or 10000 hairs? The excluded middle is, in such an instance, actually more useful than the bivalence encapsulating your analysis....
And, as I noted before, the grain of sand is simply symbolic here; we could as well apply this frame to any conceptualisation.
This is my favourite takedown of the OA - great work.
i used this today in a disagreement with a religious friend. the disagreement was not settled but i did win this point. Thank you scott for being so smart and generous with you wisdom.
jeff wolf
In order to make the argument clearer I have worked into what I believe are the necessary presuppositions.
- Assertions
1) Greatness exists in reality
2) Concepts exist in reality (although are different from that which it is a concept of)
3) Greatness can also exist in concepts (Beauty is a great making property - the concept of beauty is more beautiful then the concept of ugliness, therefore the concept of beauty is greater then the concept of ugliness)
4) You cannot conceive of something that is greater then that which is the greatest.
- Definition
That which is the greatest is God
- Based on the assertions and the Definition the reasoning follows
A concept (if associated with it the claim that it reflects a true independent existence) is greater if it not only exists as a concept but also reflects an independent reality, because truth is a great making property.
Necessary non-contingent existence (can be conceived) and is greater then contingent existence therefore that which is the greatest has necessary non-contingent existence. Because if that which is the greatest does not have necessary non-contingent existences I would be able to conceive of something greater then that which is the greatest.
If that which is the greatest only existed as a concept it would not have necessary non-contingent existence and therefore not be the greatest.
Therefore that which is the greatest must exist independently of the concept of itself.
Therefore not only does the concept of God exist, but God exists.
Jonah Lapensee _" truth is a great making property."_
So, given the correspondence theory of truth (which is the standard meaning of "truth", ie, corresponding to reality) why couldn't you just make this even simpler argument:
1. Truth is a great-making property of a concept.
2. The concept of God is the greatest concept [entailing great-making properties].
3. Therefore, the concept of God is true. [ie, God exists]
I would agree, but it seems to me the video is arguing against the correspondence theory of truth, and would say that the concept of God is true as a concept but that does not mean in reality.
Jonah Lapensee But then what would it mean to say "the concept of God is _true_ as a concept"?
Jonah Lapensee I doubt that the argument would be rejected on the basis of the theory of truth. Rather, I think the counter argument would be to distinguish between the "greatest conceivable being and the "greatest actual being" - or between the "greatest concept" and the "greatest true concept."
1. Greatness only exists in our minds and is wholly subjective. It is not something that can be found in reality. Once all minds cease to exist the concept of greatness will also cease to exist.
2. Concepts only exists in our minds. Things only exists in reality. Sometimes we can find things that represent those concepts in reality.
3. Beauty and ugliness like greatness only exists in our mind and is wholly subjective.
4. There's no objective standard for greatness so saying anything is the greatest is meaningless.
5. Saying a god is the greatest is meaningless because there is no standard of what greatness entails.
You said it in such a simple way!!!
Impressive. People who use this argument cannot be taken seriously...
Anselm clearly does not mean by God being conceived in the mind as him/her literally existing in the mind, that is clearly a straw man and a naive statement. Plus, all the beings that no greater can be conceived of (the greatest island, greatest man etc.) are all contingent beings, so there existence or non-existence are not necessary, where as the being that Anselm argues for (God) is a necessary being and a being of pure actuality (as opposed to potentiality) so those counter examples won't work with this argument.
Personally i'm a non-believer and my gut feeling tells me that somehow it is unsound, but so far no one has come up with a water tight way of proving it unsound (the closest was probably Kant). Bertrand Russell, a staunch atheist and one of the brightest logicians/philosophers to live, admitted to the strength of this argument and difficulty in proving it unsound,
It is not a straw man. The specific words that you use in a logical argument are very important. We can only go on what Anselm said and he said, quite clearly..."God exists in the mind." If this is not precisely what Anselm meant, it's his own fault for not giving more specific definitions and clarifying his terms.
Also, he addressed the 'Necessary being' and showed that it's meaningless. This is an argument that attempts to demonstrate the existence of God. To then claim within the argument that God is a 'necessary being' means you're using the conclusion OF the argument as a premise IN the argument, in other words..."You must assume that God exists in order to prove that God exists.".....You went even further by using the word 'actuality', which again, assumes that which you are describing is 'actual'.
Personally, i find the Ontological argument intellectually dishonest because instead of merely asserting that God exists, it instead asks the opponent to acknowledge that God is great and then merely asserts that existing is a necessary part of God's greatness, and then acts like it's won the argument.
It tries to just define God into existence by adding the word 'exists' to God's definition, via the word 'greatness'.
It's another assertion of blind faith, couched in the language of logic, but like most apologetic arguments that purport to be logical, it's anything but.
_"Anselm clearly does not mean by God being conceived in the mind as him/her literally existing in the mind, that is clearly a straw man and a naive statement."_
I don't think it is. I ripped the argument out of Wikipedia just for kicks. Let me try to write it out for you. The first copy is the original, the second will spell it out when we're talking about concepts.
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived..
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being-that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
--------------------------
1. Our concept of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived..
2. The concept of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that both exists in reality and has a conceptual representation in a mind is greater than the concept alone.
4. If God is only a concept, then we can form a new concept of a greater being that also manifests in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, a concept of a God that manifests in reality exists.
Which should make it clear that the argument is fallacious, assuming I didn't make any mistakes rewriting it. Anyway, TBS was just pointing out that one of the the problems with the argument is that it conflates concepts and existing things in a way that has an easy time of sneaking past human reasoning. If the argument was valid it really has to make the equivalence between existing things and concepts in some way and stating that as "God exists in the mind" is a simple way to do that.
Gnomefro The reason that Anselm doesn't believe that God literally exists in the mind is quite simple. First and foremost, Anselm is a Platonist to the core, the Platonic theory of forms considers formal reality (the abstract realm of forms) to be eternal, unchanging and incorruptible as opposed to the material world, what exists in the real world is a mere degraded image of the true forms, note that the forms themselves don't exist in the material world including our minds but in higher abstract realm. Augustine before Anselm interpreted Plato's forms as manifestation of god himself, for in the Judeo-Christian tradition god was unchangeable, incorruptible and eternal (just like Plato's forms), so like Plato Augustine believed that the forms were the highest manifestation of reality but he differed from Plato in that he attributed the forms to being part of God, so for him also the true forms themselves couldn't exist in the corruptible and changeable material world. Anselm was a staunch Platonist, the last thing he would say is god literally exists in the mind, to be generous to his argument, he says that whatever is understood exists in the understanding. Just as the plan of a painting that has yet to be executed already exists in the understanding of the painter, so that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding, but if it exists in the understanding, it must also exist in reality. So the NOTION of the idea or form of that being exists not the being itself.
I'm not saying the argument is valid, its just that your attacking it from the wrong direction, the best counter arguments to it are offered by Kant and Hume who never trivialized by saying that Anselm is saying that god literally exists in the mind because they know he's a Platonist and simply would never imply that. That argument Kant gives against it is that you can't predicate existence as an essence of a thing (which Kant believes Anselm is doing), Hume argues that the argument can't be proved for the simple fact that a priori arguments are not demonstrable.
Sam .AB "Anselm is a Platonist to the core." Congratulations. You have effectively discredited Anselm.
***** It seems likely that Drew is aware of that, and you didn't understand what he meant. Platonists assert that abstract concepts are actually 'things' that exist in the third realm. As a concept, it is quite unlikely to be true.
But, even if what Sam contends were true, even if that's not what Anselm meant, taking his third premiss from wikipedia:
"3.A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind."
The equivocation is STILL there, and TBS's objection is still perfectly valid. "Beings" do not exist as ideas. CONCEPTS exist as ideas...concepts OF beings.
The problem with this objection is that the wording of Anselms argument betrays this. The second premiss isn't 'God exists as an abstract object in the third realm', it's 'God exists in the mind', this is because he must have known many reject platonism, and don't think that abstract objects have their own place where they exist.
However, even if you grant Sams interpretation, then the newly constructed argument pointing to what he meant. If Anselm did not mean that god exists in the mind, if he was only referring to the rational statement 'god can be a concept in the mind', then the ontological argument is a non sequitur.
1> God is, by definition, the greatest being conceivable
2> God is a concept in the mind
3> To exist as a concept in the mind and in reality is greater than to exist as a concept in the mind alone
4> Therefor, God exists in reality as well as being a concept in the mind, if he did not he would not be the greatest being conceivable.
Firstly, this makes the question begging in 1 clear. If you're trying to prove god is a being and not only a concept, you can't start with the assertion that he is a being and work from there. Premiss 1 states he is a being and premiss 2 states he is also a concept.
The only way it's not immediately fallacious is to read it as saying that AS A CONCEPT, the conception of god is one of the greatest possible being. Which is a bit redundant but you get the idea.
Secondly, you have god being a concept in the mind. However, no matter how great a concept may be, it does not follow that the concept must refer to something that exists. I can be thinking of the worlds most existent apple, and it is more existent to exist in reality and as a concept than to exist as a concept alone, but that does not matter.
3 does not follow from 2. If your argument starts from 'god is a concept', and tries to use the greatness of that concept to prove it must exist, you do not have a logical progression. There is nothing about greatness that can substantiate concepts into being, and nothing about greatness that is proof that a concept is pointing to something existent.
Another way to put this is 'the conception of greatness has no relation to existence'.
If your argument starts from 'god is a being', then you have inserted your conclusion into your first premiss and you have committed a fallacy of circular reasoning.
Finally, if you argue that beings exist as concepts you have committed the fallacy of equivocation, as it is not the beings that exist as concepts, it is the concepts of beings that exist, which is a very different thing.
Philosophy is a very weak point of mine, so I hope that didn't drag on too much, I just wanted to be as clear as I could.
@XxVINCEROxX Apparently, Plantinga feels that the entire argument's soundness depends on how the interlocutor in the conversation feels about the possibility premise. and states that since there's no proof AGAINSt it, its chances of being right are 50/50.
The common objection, which is a technically correct objection, is that the possibility premise relies on axion S5 of Modal logic, and words the argument in a way to make 'possibly necessary' actually just 'necessary'.
mummy , i wanna be like him!
Awesome video Scott, please make some more.
There are many things wrong with this argument but the main on is this:
The very claim "God exists" is non-sensical because it not true by definition and is therefore synthetic, not analytic, but we have never experienced a God so even this claim is not supported. God is something which has a certain set of defined properties (although this doesn't mean it has to exist just like e.g. a unicorn). Adding "exists" on the end is illogical because this claims that the definition of God includes something that exists outside of our own minds and this is not necessarily true. For example: God is perfect is true because the idea of "perfection" is included in the definition of a God. Existence, however, is not because we have no experience of God existing in the physical world. This makes the entire argument fall apart before it even gets of the ground.
Gawd F#ck sayz Whut???
@Anomalous59 As for those fundamental questions about the nature of existence being addressed by the OA... Well, as an example, is existence a Thing or is it an incident? If existence is a Thing, is it a conscious Thing? If it is a conscious Thing, is it then right to admit the possibility of it being personally involved in the activities of the things that exist?
1.) Our understanding of God is a being that which no greater can be conceived.
2.) The idea of God exists in the mind.
3.) A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4.) If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being-that which exists in reality.
5.) We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6.) Therefore, God exists.
It seems to me that you have seriously misunderstood and even taken out of context this argument. This argument is not claiming that God literally exists as a being within the mind. Rather, this argument is stating that God is the greatest conceivable being. Whether He exists or not, God is defined as the maximally greatest being. He does not have to literally exist to have this attribute, just as Harry Potter has the attribute of being a wizard, yet he does not actually exist.
Secondly, this argument does not commit the fallacy of equivocation. As I stated earlier, this argument is not trying to state that God exists as a literal being within the mind, but that if God is to be the maximally greatest being, then He must be more than a mere concept. He must exist in reality. This arguments states that if God is merely a conception (existing in the mind), He is not the greatest conceivable being. Why? Because a being that would be greater than the concept of God would be God actually existing. Therefore, God exists.
Also in support of this is the fact that premise two states that the *idea* of God exists in the mind. Well, an entity actually existing within reality is greater than the same entity existing as an idea, concept, or thought. This is the heart of the argument. So, the ontological argument hasn't really committed said fallacy.
Thirdly, God is a maximally great being in that He is transcendent of everything, as demanded by His very nature. He is not contingent upon anything for His own existence, including human perceptions such as "greatness" or "perfection". If He created the Universe then he must--as demanded by His very nature in being the creator of the Universe--transcend all properties of the Universe and the Universe itself. This is what is meant by maximally great. That there is no being greater (*not* as in more perfect) than God. Transcending the properties of existence and non-existence would make such an entity greater than an entity who is bound by these properties, thus, God is the greatest conceivable being. It seems that *you* are the one who has committed the fallacy of equivocation for the word "greater".
It seems that you have misunderstood the premises of the argument, and took them out of their context. You misunderstood the definition of exist, as the context in which its being used here is that He exists within the mind, meaning He is a concept, not that He literally exists as a being within the mind. It seems that you have, again, committed the fallacy of equivocation.
The greatest doughnut in the world contains the property of existence. Therefore I'm licking my lips for that doughnut. Still waiting. Stiiiilllll waiiiitinnnnngg.
"3.) A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind."
It totally depends on the "being", and it also depends on what you mean by "greater". If, for example, the "being" you have in mind is, say, "Yahweh", and if "greater" means "better", then I contend that, no, it would NOT be "better" that "Yahweh" exist (or any other being exist who would drown the entire planet) in reality as well as in the mind. We're better off that such a being only exists in our minds.
***** By "being" we mean something that can exist, either in reality or as a concept.
By "greater" we mean more capable; that nothing can transcend God. God is the greatest being in existence. A being that exists in reality is more capable than a being that exists only in the mind.
As well, your personal belief that it is not a good thing that Yahweh exists or that Yahweh is not better is no grounds for a argument.
God does not have mutually exclusive attributes.
Secondly, God has no trouble actualizing His will.
Xenophilius "God does not have mutually exclusive attributes."
So, your conception of "God" doesn't have any mutually exclusive attributes. This is good news. So, you'd then agree that if a person harbored a conception of a "God" that was, for example, both "infinitely just" and "infinitely merciful", that this person would be harboring an impossible concept of "God". Yes?
"Secondly, God has no trouble actualizing His will."
At best, your version of the ontological argument points to a "being" that is "more capable" than any other. It does not necessarily point to a specific "God", and thus, no specific "God" has been established, as far I can see.
@XxVINCEROxX And when I say "I go to people like Sam Harris" I mean I go to people I've seen in debates, I go to people who write a lot of books that I'm able to get rather easily. If I want to get a peer reviewed philosophical paper, I have to do some digging.
How about Daniel Dennett? He got his doctorate of philosophy at Oxford, I read his works, is that good enough?
P1- God is the greatest possible being, who created everything
P2- Creation by a being that DOES exist, is by definition more mundane and therefore less great, than creation by a being who DOES NOT exist.
Conclusion- To be the GREATEST POSSIBLE being, it's ontologically necessary that god does NOT exist.
But what distinguishes maximally great trees and plants from regular ones? What specific characteristics would they have (without simply putting 'maximally great' in front of them since this would lack clarity).
Awesome video, perfect analogies. The cookie analogy is the best! I wouldn't have minded if you added 3 more analogies for reference.
Thank you for making this video; it aided me greatly in organizing my thoughts for a paper I'm writing.
@Anomalous59 I guess I do have yet to see the equivocation, because the issue here is NOT that existence is a predicate to greatness. It's that existence is a property of existence.
@yedrow Not all possibilities, but a single actuality -- yes. an apple is both apple and atoms, and one may abstractly conceive the apple without the atoms, but one does not then fully conceive anything, but merely uses a representation to stand in for what is not fully understood (and to the human mind simply not fully understandable).... this is not the kind of understanding necessary for day-to-day functioning, but simply the kind ontologically necessary for the argument to function....
@XxVINCEROxX But it's what I'm referring to. Begging the question like that is, in my mind, something that makes the argument unsound as a whole. After all, if it's going to be sound, it has to be sound in ALL of its premises, and begging the question, is very unsound. It's not necessarily a flaw, sure, but it's not necessarily a strong point either. This is why Plantinga himself said it's not always a strong argument for God, depending on the participants in the argument.
@XxVINCEROxX I'm not talking about conclusive, I'm talking about practical knowledge, an evidence given basis for the assumption of cake yumminess. If one must steal to get the cake, then this 'maximally greeat' being isn't so great, if they are forcing you into a situation where oyu must steal to obtain the cake which is yummy. If greatness of a being is more subjective than yumminess, then there's no way to assume the ontological argument's premises anyway.Something is great if it's appeasing.
@yedrow What in our studies of our Universe makes an "activating agent" necessary to explain any characteristics of our Universe? And for your elucidation, time is a function of space, and so there was no "infinity" of existence prior to the existence of space, which required Creation (and indeed there need not be, for energy alone existing outside of time and space will still function as a quantum computer, and enough of it would be powerful enough to create our Universe and its governing laws.
I want to second the comment below from "Rauron", thanks for making the video. It helped alot in my understanding of how screwed up this argument is. I appreciate the hard work and deep thought of philosophers but I am glad that is not the road I am going to take in life.
@XxVINCEROxX I completely agree that the debates don't serve to come up with an actually good debate. BUT, it DOES put the debaters in the public eye, AND it shows you how intellectually competent they are, which is a good starting point.
Thank you! I've had this argument SO many times and I am so sick of hearing it. Now I only have to refer people to this video and they can shut up!
(continued from below) as is the way of Absurdism, in literature, like the story "Bartleby the Scrivener". Which one do you think is going to live a happier, and not only happier, but a more morally structured life as a better human being? So someone believes, but when he dies it turns out their really is not such thing, so what? He ends up like the rest, decomposing matter in the earth. On the chance that it does exist, the non-believer "burns in hell". Which one would you rather be?
I have a third problem with that last bit. I do not see how God is more necessary than cookies. I just discovered your channel today, and I've enjoyed your ideas very much. I do hope you continue to make more in the future, even if the long hiatuses are necessary (and, presumably, also more necessary than God).
@yedrow You are shifting definitions midstride.... lawless as in "lacking moral governance" is simply not the same thing as lawless as in "lacking consistent physics" -- a neat trick, but only if you're not caught doing it. Hence, an amoral Universe may most certainly have predictable outcomes.
Subbed, for clear logical thinking, solid presentation and great delivery.
Science! Logic! Fun!
@yedrow The question is not whether you are closer to God or the chimp, the question is which are you closer to being -- if you had to draw a line with the chimp on one end and God on the other, where are you on that line? Are you more chimplike, or more Godlike? If you were to draw that line from amoebas to God, with you and the chimp on it, how close then would you be to the chimp. Oh, and by the way, chimps have been observed to act remorseful after doing bad things (even dogs will do that).
Excellent use of logic. Anselm's argument has driven me nuts for its weakness since I first encountered it years ago. Your's was the best criticism I've seen and very easy to follow.
My usual reply has been that there have been things that exist in the mind that have been proven not to exist, such as the 19th century concept of ether.
I've also pointed out that the christian god idea does not exist as a normal noun. It exists as an explanation for what used to the unexplainable.
great video TBS.... thanks
I like this kid.
@THEEVANTHETOON Y The argument omniscience and free will incomparably has yet to be reconciled by any theist.> I never got a response to the question Is there a theory which reconciles free will with an omniscient god?
@Anomalous59 I'm not sure what you think this is showing about the OA because that is not how the OA is structured as an argument. It would be more like "Imagine the greatest flying creature possible (this we would call a "dragon")..." and then require you to argue for the characteristics of what is the greatest possible flying creature. Whatever that subsequent entity is, it would be a "dragon". And given the nature of the subject, such a maximally great flyer probably does exist.
@THEEVANTHETOON The B-theory of time is a term, given to one of two positions taken by theorists, in the philosophy of time. The labels, A-theory and B-theory, are derived from the analysis of time and change developed by Cambridge philosopher J. M. E. McTaggart in The Unreality of Time, in which events are ordered via a tensed A-series or a tenseless B-series.
@XxVINCEROxX Because he used the 'shotgun' technique. The fact is if you don't refute every single argument in your rebuttal to WLC, he can just point and laugh at your inability to refute all of his points, laugh at your attempts to refute the points, as well as point out you didn't provide the argument he declared you are required to have. At that point, WHAT can you do?
@yedrow Why would I have to demonstrate the persistence of complexity -- I've only claimed it exists to this point.... Naturally, a claim of persistence is supported by our scientific observations and by our own experience of technological advance....
You are so intelligent, I could listen to you talk all day.
There is an invisible, PINK, Omnipotent unicorn on all of your roofs. For a unicorn to be PINK, and omnipotent it must exist, Therefore The invisible PINK, omnipotent unicorn on all of your roofs exists!
@Crownw3 Also, to conclude. I would like to point out that this is about logic as WELL as philosophy. So he could very well fail at philosophy, but that wouldn't even take away from his deconstructing of a logical argument.
I just finished reading anselms argument, and have begun with Aquinas in the "summa theologia" have you done any refuting of his arguments?
@Anomalous59 ...For example, there seems to be a reasonable argument to be made that beauty lies in moderate and coherent sets of relations (i.e.: the golden ratio, symmetry, etc.). If that is true, then yes the most beautiful thing does actually exist because it would be a mathematical concepts and, as I argued, mathematical concepts are amongst those class of conceptual abstracts that DO actually exist by their own definition...
You didn't include the link to "random necessarily" in the description like you said.
Fortunately it appears in the list of videos.
The greatest problem with the ontological argument that philosophers have indicated is not that it tries to "define" God into existence but that "existence" is not a property of a thing.
Great work. 😎👍
@frieddumplin All the argument asserts is that those that don't believe God exists as defined as the "greatest conceivable being" simply don't understand what the concept of God is. People that advocate the argument would say something along the lines, "you just don't understand what God means." A good criticism of the argument is Foucault's thoughts on linguistic relativity.
@XxVINCEROxX Even subjective things can be determined to a 'knowledgable' degree without direct personal experience. If I took a poll using an unbiased method wherein I asked if Chocolate cake was yummy, and I had an overwhelming majority of people who claimed the positive, then BAM, that's enough to have practical knowledge. I now have a foundation for my knowledge of Chocolate Cake's yumminess. So no, it doesn't still hold. :)
@Anomalous59 Well, the video's maker actually gave a great example with reasons why the Evangelical Christian God (or certain concepts thereof) might not be worth considering particularly great. There are better God concepts out there.
For me, it does help reframe a concept of God as basically the predicate for existence. Or Existence, as the case may be. Hence why I take a dim view of the whole "God is a cosmic sasquatch" meme, which is also quite banal.
It's 2024 and I'm binging these again.
@AllenQuatermain2de Being that the argument is a Reductio ad absurdum the entire point is to agree with the opposing party to create a paradox. P2 is making a statement and at the same time asking a question to the opponent. Already assuming that God doesn't exist in reality, if he did exist in reality would that make him greater than just being a fictitious concept in our thoughts? The opponent must agree or they undermine their own position that the concept of God is meaningless.
@SpuBret You are right, it is in the Aristotelian sense that is generally understood by St Anselm.
"to define god into existence" That is so well said.
@THEEVANTHETOON You also never answered my question .Is there any theory of free will which could be considered compatible with a being perfectly knowing the future?
@XxVINCEROxX Oh? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is his cream and berries so to speak, he's stuck with that despite just about nobody except people presupposed to agree with him find it to be a valid and sound argument. It preys on the common sense of the people who hear about it, and ACTUALLY violates Identity when it comes to philosophy when someone brings up that 'things' daren't caused to exist, identities are, and there's a difference between causing an identity to exist, and material.
@Anomalous59 But the OA does not fail in this respect because it does not say that any one or another particular God concept is the maximally great being. It's saying that whatever the maximally great being is (which I argue is Being itself), THAT'S God.
@mrcusterd why would the opponent of the argument have to take the position that the concept of god is meaningless? and why would agreeing or disagreeing with P2 effect whether or not the concept of god has meaning?
Which particular version do you have in mind?
Kalam is just as bunk as the original cosmological argument.
@PanDeism In the sense I'm speaking, and I'm not an expert at these concepts, the law of non-contradiction essentially asserts that a thing is completely itself without contradiction (a cannot be both a and not at at the same time). The law of the excluded middle asserts that no thing is exclusively definable, an apple is both and apple and atoms and an orange is both an orange and atoms and both are atoms so where does one really end and the other begin.
Brilliant. thank you
Thanks for that T.B, I had previously disregarded the O argument in a knee jerk type reaction to something comparable to a steaming turd ... not realizing until watching this video that I could potentially have been cornered, finding myself pathetically stammering in a search for words on account of a certain lack of sound rebuttal.
... Now bring em on baby!
You're very well spoken! Thanks for that!
"Who will validate that after you are gone? You will be dispersed matter. Will worms care that you didn't waste your life? Will you? Will anyone?"
This is the truth about this reality REGARDLESS of whether or not some sort of deity exists.
Best refutation yet! Great vid!
@THEEVANTHETOON And exactly how did they reslove the problem?
@mrcusterd fair enough, so what style is it?:P
@yedrow First, I have made no claim of an "infinite" progression -- if the purpose of our Universe is to provide to its Creator some flavor of the experiences it can not have in its native form, then a single sufficiently diverse and complex Universe ought to provide all the experience needed (consider the amount of experience generated in the sum of human experience up to now alone, excluding even the possibility of intelligent life in other galaxies, and our own future evolution)....
@XxVINCEROxX Yes, the poster boy for debate, because of his tactics that are unbeatable, UNLESS the debate is about one of the arguments in particular. Have oyu noticed that if a debate he's in just addresses one of his arguments, by the end of the debate he just starts babbling about how he's experienced God through the Holy Spirit? As if that's supposed to mean anything?
problems with plantinga's version (using wiki):
P1: an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being is not logically possible (meaning of "possible world"?)
P2: relevance?
P3: see P1
P4: attempt at deriving an "is" from a "could"
P5: see P4
But to the point: it doesn't matter what version you use(although the premises and objections are different) the goal of this argument is to define god into existence. it's the same as saying: "god exists, therefor god exists"
On objection 2: How I understand the OA, for right or wrong, is that greatness is defined in relation to the nature of the thing. The greatest possible square is one with 4 equal lines linked by 4 90 degree angles. In other words: the squariest square, and the squariest square is simply the definition of a square, because it is a conceptual abstract that actually does exist by definition...
@ TheoreticalBullshit: Have you made a video about Craig's modal ontological argument? If not, you should make one. I'd like seeing your critique.
@yedrow As an example, we know gravity exists (or if you disagree, we know something exists which we seem to experience as gravity) -- and so, it must come from somewhere, and it is reasonable to suppose that it was created by some entity. If we suppose this, such entity must be at least powerful enough to create gravity -- but that is all we can know of it from that one circumstance.... nothing about gravity requires its Creator to be infinite, or have a triple-personality, or to judge humans.
@THEEVANTHETOON "Theologians have resolved it time and tme again" Which Theologians were you refering ?
Great video ,but Religious apologist do not use Anselms version on the Ontological these days. William Lane Craig uses Alvin Plantinga version ,which still is fallacious on its own merits ,but differs from the default position of existence. But Craig always uses the the word "possible".
This keeps the posibilties open for their constructed argument.
@Calenfeyn41 Anselm CLEARLY with his premises went BEYOND the idea of a conceptual being. The argument essentially is "As long as we can concieve something that is maximally great, it then exists." It's a concept being arbitraily promoted to outside being of existence.
the sad thing is:
modern philosophers still love the ontological argument. they think it works, the think it saves the day, and some(and this is far too many no matter what) think it's the only inteliigent argument needed. you don't need anything else
@PanDeism Why would we experience "most profoundly" that which we caused others to feel? What if I intend to make someone feel good/bad and achieve the opposite? How do you retain your person and have that personage be dependent on the reaction of others to it? What of soldiers in long wars defending their homeland? What of the two sides cheering for you, each canceling out the other in their reaction for you?
@PanDeism By "activating agent" I mean that which caused the timeless to begin to operate under the rules of time? If you accept the BB, and I do, prior to the BB we had a singularity. By my reasoning space-time couldn't exist in such a singularity since space-time are little more than perceptions of expansion and either the universe was always expanding (again negating space-time) or it was a singularity that existed without time. What caused it to stop being that way. Same for god.
I'm doing a paper on the ontological argument. Are there any philosophers with published books which make all the points you made?
People say the ontological argument has no counterargument - why do we not use this?!
"The problem is the Pricean Counterargument which I've defined as an argument that perfectly counters the ontological argument. For it to be perfect it must be a) logically irrefutable, b) confirmed by all available evidence and c) already in your pocket and the pocket of every theism so I don't have to explain it to each of you. If it lacks any of these qualities then it's not the argument I defined. Therefore you must have a perfect counterargument to the ontological argument in your pocket. Please check your pockets and if such an argument is there admit your ontological argument is wrong. If it's not STILL admit that it's wrong because I used the same arguments for it's existence as you did for God's and I was wrong."
@XxVINCEROxX It shows though, that they are able to think on their feet, which, I feel, shows a LEVEL of intellectual competence.
I recommend looking at Alvin Plantinga's argument more in depth.
@XxVINCEROxX Oh, so you have a BA in philosophy as well?
true true, which is why i find it rather curious that people believe the ontological argument is persuasive even though you can simply reject it purely on the fact that it is ontological, something that has no connection to reality can never be shown to have any relevance there.
@XxVINCEROxX Plantinga himself says his argument is subjective, so you're not gonna get anywhere by pointing to his and going, "But this one works!"
The thing is, if an argument IS sound, then that counts as a logical proof for the existence of God, since it right now doesn't count as a logical proof for god, then it's obviously noty sound.
You freaked me out because I was thinking about unicorns as soon as you showed the premises of the argument.
Am I late to the party?
Anyway, a fifth(?) problem with the argument would hide behind the very first premise: I call this the _mathematical objection_ to the ontological argument, because it touches a little bit of ordered set theory. Notice the wording "greater" which insinuates that the set of conceivable ideas is somehow ordered and that the idea of "God" would somehow be defined as the maximal element of this ordered set.
And here is the thing; in order to define something and build a meaningful argument around something you define, you must first explain why your definition even makes sense. In this case, defining something as the "maximum element" in any regard, Anselm would first have to explain why the set of conceivable ideas is ordered in the first place and secondly, he would have to show that this set actually _has_ a maximal element, since ordered sets do not necessarily have that right from the start.
A sixth(?) problem hides behind the third premise: Besides the obvious equivocation "existing as well in the mind as in reality" what this premise seems to express is that the concept of God is, by its "greatness", automatically connected to an existing object called "God". But in real life I cannot just go around and arbitrarily connect a concept to any object, I must ensure that my concept of an object and the object itself are congruent. Otherwise I could say: "Haha, behold! I have a concept of a God in my mind and I connect it to... erm... this pencil! Now this pencil can forgive my sins and grant me eternal life after death!"
I mean, you _could_ do that, but that would not get you very far, would it?
So there must already be an object called "God" and I must experience this object in order to form an idea about that object, which I then can connect to that very object. The third premise therefore assumes the final conclusion.
"Value" can be defined in terms of "capacity to effect change". In that case, power and knowledge be both objective and valuable. Again, you are amazingly confined in your own assertions.
It could be defined thus: Under any relevant circumstances, success depends on having X over not having it. However, even that is conceding too much. You said "it is of paramount importance", but that presupposes the idea that one way of debating is "better" than another.
@Calenfeyn41 I find it funny when we attack the premises exactly as they are worded, yet people still cry "Strawman!" It's absolutely asinine. If Premise 2 says "God exists in the mind" then we're going to attack the concept of "god existing in the mind" That's not a strawman. Same for the other premises. A strawman would be if we gave the incorrect premises and argued those, but we didn't. If you WANT us to argue Plantinga's model, which actually isn't sound EITHER, then do so.