A New Ontological Argument, Dr. Josh Rasmussen // CCv1 Session 5
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- Dr. Josh Rasmussen was our fifth presenter at CCv1. In this talk, he presents a a new ontological argument based on the positivity of a perfect being.
Josh's UA-cam channel: / worldviewdesignchannel
More on the logic of the argument:
joshualrasmussen.blogspot.com...
joshualrasmussen.com/s5/
Special thanks to our videographer John Cranman for the intro on this video!
0:00:00 Opener
0:00:29 Introductory Summary of the Presentation
0:03:32 Presentation
0:51:13 Q&A
--------------------------- FREE STUFF ---------------------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#CCv1 #OntologicalArgument #ExistenceofGod
Dr. Rasmussen is quickly becoming one of my favorite people on UA-cam
I found him out just last week, and he’s my favorite already. Wish he still posted UA-cam videos, Ive been binge watching everything he has
@@LarryRuffin-vy7hx I have a bunch of videos with him on this channel.
@@CapturingChristianity I’ve almost watched all of them! I meant on his personal UA-cam channel. I found him through you and the Contingency argument
@@CapturingChristianity Could you put more time stamps please :/
One of my favorite talks at the conference.
Dr. Rasmussen is sooooo humble ❤️
Humility and haughtiness are RELATIVE. 😉
I think a humble person would say that we don't and likely can't know what the foundation of reality is.
@@alexp8924 There are THREE possible explanations for life/existence:
1. The external, objective universe is the sole REALITY.
2. The perceiver (that is, the subject) of the objective universe is the sole REALITY.
3. This existence is a virtual REALITY, similar to the premise of “The Matrix” films.
Which do YOU believe to be the most plausible explanation?
@@ReverendDr.Thomas how are any of those 3 “explain life/existence”?
@@HarryNicNicholas just ONE more will suffice. 🤔
Wow, definitely one of the best resources on the internet about ontological arguments.
@@HarryNicNicholas did you watch the video?
@@CapturingChristianity
The charge of confirmation bias would seem to be sustained (if one accepts the arguments) given the lack of soundness of the arguments.
@@MyContext I find that very untrue.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT
Are you claiming not to understand that the arguments are unsound? If so, please present a theological argument which you think to be sound and I will point out the issue(s).
@@MyContext The Modal Ontological argument does not assume existence as a property of God in order to suggest his own ontology makes him exist, but rather he is a necessary entity in the foundation of reality in every theoretically possible world if and only if his logical coherence is consistent. In other words, he is a necessary being, however that does not mean existence is an assumed property of God.
I'm only addressing this now because its the only reasonable objection to the argument.
As an atheist I appreciate people explaining why they believe what they believe.
Well, Slave, we all have our own particular BELIEFS, but ultimately, there exists objective truth, which is not subject to our misconceptions and misunderstandings.
One who has transcended mundane relative truth is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. 😇
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Slave? That's a bit strong and insulting to start off with.
And if you really are interested in truth, you'll soon see that religion is not a reliable way to discern truth.
A bit presumptuous of you to assume you have transcended and know objective truth. How do you know what you believe is true? How did you come to those conclusions?
From my perspective, it is you that is the slave to indoctrination, but I didn't need to mention that except you started off by calling me a slave with a capital S.
You'll begin your journey to transcendence when you start looking for truth instead of looking to be told what's true by somebody else.
As a theist I appreciate people explaining why they believe what they believe. But one must never forget that reality, what ever it is, does not conform itself to what anybody believes. It is what it is whether we like it or not...
If there is no God then there is no amount of belief one can ever have that will make one pop into existence, and likewise if there is a God there is no amount of disbelief one could ever have that would make him/it just disappear ether. To be wrong about this has unprecedented consequences especially for those who chose not to believe. For if there is no God then upon death one simply ceases to exist making the decision moot. But if there is a God and you have rejected all possible gods (AKA atheism) then you loos by default regardless of which god turns out to be real.....
@@Bc232klm That is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
@@GSpotter63
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of seeming facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron.
Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself).
The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted simultaneously with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed?
Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion.
Of course, the more INTELLIGENT theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense, and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term.
Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I am planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals).
Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself.
Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth.
The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to the Absolute as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the Ground of Being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristicss of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, you are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a a legitimate contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness.
There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity):
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
Cont...
When complexity is not held back we loose nothing of the person’s original thought. Thank you Cameron and Dr. Rasmussen for showcasing a rigorous, in depth, and unsimplified version of this argument.
@@HarryNicNicholas 😂😂
Dear professor Rasmussen, why wouldn't a maximally sided shape be a *circle*?
Hence, circles exist.
One reason is that not all maximally sided shapes are equilateral; e.g., the Koch snowflake.
@@CapturingChristianity BRUH'VE REALLY CLOWNING 😂. If God made a square circle then I can make a triangle with no sides 😆. I really enjoy and appreciate your content Cameron and Capturing Christianity because your work in Christian Apologetics is bringing about awareness and the furtherance of The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ our to this young generation of believers and unbelievers alike. This has nothing to do with the video but please listen if you want to otherwise leave it alone and ignore it. Hello my name is Justin and I'm a fellow Christian and Apologist but I'm also a college student. I'm not a closed minded Theist as I have nothing against Atheists or unbelievers as I speak to them often to understand their reasons for unbelief but we as Christians are convinced of God's Existence due to many real factors). I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince anyone to become Christians as that's The Holy Spirit's job to help people believe but only explain why I believe in Jesus Christ. There's actually evidence of God's Existence in Christianity. First of all there's proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed in history since the writings of Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the younger and other historical documents prove that He was living two thousand years ago that even scholars both religious and Atheists agree with historically speaking but not that He's The Divine Son of God because obviously they don't.
I'm going to give you historical and archeological evidence for God's Existence as The Scriptures have prophecies that predate the events recorded in them by several millennia including Matthew, Hosea and Zechariah which prophesy accurately of the people of Israel becoming a nation again after over 1900 years of being scattered around the nations since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. spoken of by Christ in Matthew 23:29-24:3 and returning to their homeland after The Holocaust with Jerusalem as their capital in 1948 exactly as Jesus The Christ said. The prophets including Daniel spoke of the time where several world empires would arise and fall including the Babylonian kingdom, Medes and Persians, Roman Empire, and Saladin and the Muslims which went in consecutive order for the past few millennia. The people of Israel becoming a nation after The Holocaust in 1948 (ironically the melting point of gold as God compares Israel to gold that's tested in fire in Zechariah 13:8 and Jeremiah 16:15) exactly how Jesus The Christ said would happen since God us everything to come in The Scriptures and not just because people were working towards as Atheists claim which are impossible for any regular man to predict.
Just before anyone says Christianity is a white man's religion made to oppress blacks during slavery you obviously aren't aware that the first Christians were Jews in The Middle East and that Christianity just like any religion can be used by evil and corrupt people to oppress others but you forget that the first Abolitionists/Civil Rights activists were Christians who sought to abolish slavery, racism, segregation, injustice and prejudice throughout American history. Jesus The Christ loves you enough not to give you what we all deserve which is God's Wrath by His Own Blood. Charles Darwin didn't originally come up with The Theory of Evolution over 200 years ago as it is mentioned in the writings of Ancient Greeks who believed in Demons that gave knowledge to philosophers.
Evolution makes no sense when nothing has evolved after thousands of years of human history and supposedly the first creature came from primordial sludge several millions of years
ago funny how they won't believe that God an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being created us from the Earth) which came from a supermassive expansion of matter at high temperature that inexplicably created everything in the known universe that supposedly came from nothing billions of years ago. How did the organs evolve before there were bones, skin, substance and how did any creatures see before eyes evolved? I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" and I'm not convinced of but not macro or micro Evolution because there's no evidence of it nor clear observable examples of it where living creatures evolve into other kinds of species plus the fact that fossils don't show evidence of evolution and genetic entropy rules out evolution. The question begs how did two genders evolve from a common ancestor with a perfectly hospitable and sustainable environment with breathable oxygen and resources to survive on inexplicably? Atheists have the burden of proof to explain how everything came to be and why our existence is possible without the Existence of God from an godless perspective just as Christians have to provide evidence of God's Existence and the validity of His Word.
Evolution requires life to already exist in order to take any effect in living organisms so it doesn't account for the existence of Life and reality. Also evolution is impossible because it goes against The Law of entropy and the second Law of thermodynamics because evolution makes things better whereas nothing continues to get better but decays and turns to absolute destruction in the end. Mark Ridley an Evolutionist said "No evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of The Theory of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to special Creation". God's Existence is made perfectly known and observable in the universe as demonstrated in His Handiwork in the intelligently designed manner that Creation was made, human consciences and consciousness historical and archaeological evidence of God's Word being valid history, fulfillment of Bible Prophecies God in His Holiness and Righteousness could give us what we deserve in Hell for our since but He's merciful to give us free will to choose to accept or reject His gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus. I don't mean this is any condescending manner but if you'd like to discuss The Scriptures with me or have me listen to your view on anything my instagram account is Savage Christian Kombatant.
@@justingary5322 bruh
@@HarryNicNicholas No.
Please add chapter time stamps for the different segments of the talk.
Yes!
Great presentation!
Discovered Josh Rasmussen the other day. He's so awesome to listen to. Gonna have an enjoyable week or so going through the internet's backlog!
Good stuff as always man
Dr. Rasmussen is AMAZING Great job
I am sooooo glad he decided to just let it rip. He is so good. This is what philosophers should be like. It's even okay that he mispronounces Gödel.
No. It is not what Philosophers should be like. Philosophers should think deeper and harder. And if this Guy did think deeper and harder, then he would have found that the Ontological Argument fails for the following reasons.
A Perfect Being would be “All Knowing” ( Omniscient ) and Completely Free. But Omniscience and Freedom clash. They are not compatible. If God were “All Knowing”, then He would be determined to do what His knowledge stated He will do. He would not be free ‘to do other than’ what His knowledge stated He will do.
God would not be able to think up any new thoughts nor have any original ideas because that would be providing God with new knowledge and that would mean that He really was not All Knowing. If God were “All Knowing”, it would mean that this World by necessity had to exist. God could not have refrained and not created this World because His knowledge stated that this World would exist.
If God were “All Knowing”, then you end up with God’s knowledge having Sovereignty over God. God can’t be free. He is bound to always do what His Knowledge tells Him He will do.
Thus: - The Ontological Argument fails.
Parker, I regretfully have to agree with Mirabillis the Bitter and Angry that the ontological argument is utterly unpersuasive to non-experts like me. I am totally uninterested in philosophy but watched this because I'm interested in apologetics and I was open to finding this persuasive.
I really didn't, at all, and I sadly agree with everyone posting here basically the same argument that this argument is built on one or more dubious assumptions.
This is not to say I agree with his specific arguments, he's making his own dubious assumptions.
@@TheMirabillis Hi, I’d like to try and respond to your argument. Please let me know if you think I went wrong somewhere and why :)
So I agree that God would have to be perfect if He exists, but I disagree that His perfect properties of absolute knowledge and absolute freedom are incompatible.
You said that since God knows everything, He knows the future- and so He knows his future actions, and so He is not free to take his own actions. This would mean He is imperfect (lacking freedom, a positive property) and therefore does not exist.
But….
If you are saying that God knows a *definite future event*, then you are saying that the future is determined. That would mean you are begging the question / assuming your conclusion is true in your premise- namely, that God lacks free will in His future actions. You can not use the point that Gods future actions are determined to argue for the conclusion that Gods actions are determined (If He possesses omniscience)
However, if you are saying that God knows a *possible future event*, then you are saying that God knows all the possible free choices to be made, which means your conclusion is false since it would entail that knowledge does not negate free will. This is because freedom is the ability to choose from a variety of options, and knowing of all possible options to choose from fits that criteria.
@@Adrian-ri8my IF God is All Knowing, then all of His actions are Determined. They are Determined by His Knowledge. God’s knowledge stated to Him that this World will exist. Therefore, this World must exist because if it didn’t exist, then God’s knowledge that this World will exist would have been wrong.
IF there were possibilities or possible future events, then it follows that God is not All Knowing. Namely, because He didn’t know or doesn’t know which Possibility will be actualised or become real until He made a decision on what possibility will be actualised.
The only way that God can be free to do X or Y is to be not All Knowing. God would then have the Freedom to choose this or that. But if God always knows what He is going to do, then He is not free to do otherwise.
@@TheMirabillis You’re assuming freedom is *necessarily* the ability to do otherwise. That is a sufficient condition for freedom, not a necessary one. For God to be free, all that is required is that his actions are not causally determined. Since God is the “first mover,” he’s free *by definition*.
The child by the seaside
The story goes as follows:
While Augustine was working on his book On the Trinity, he was walking by the seaside one day, meditating on the difficult problem of how God could be three Persons at once. He came upon a little child. The child had dug a little hole in the sand, and with a small spoon or seashell was scooping water from the sea into the small hole. Augustine watched him for a while and finally asked the child what he was doing. The child answered that he would scoop all the water from the sea and pour it into the little hole in the sand. ‘What?’ Augustine said. ‘That is impossible. Obviously, the sea is too large and the hole too small.’ ‘Indeed,’ said the child, ‘but I will sooner draw all the water from the sea and empty it into this hole than you will succeed in penetrating the mystery of the Holy Trinity with your limited understanding.’ Augustine turned away in amazement and when he looked back the child had disappeared.
@Patrick FF no
@Patrick FF No to “god sac rises himself to himself to appease himself.” No to the o lt thing you’ve said on the thread
Over my head but glad to have something to work through.
“For by grace ye are saved through FAITH, and that not of yourself. It is the GIFT of GOD, not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Its great to see Anselm updated. I guess my question would be something like, why should I assume that human abstractions link up to reality in the way this argument seems to assume? Why should it be the case that straightness, or greatness, or even goodness are real out there somewhere apart from people when it seems like these are little more than labels we use to group things and experiences? Thanks for your work.
You don’t need to assume it, it assumes you. It’s the inherent moral awareness and sense of truth you were born with thanks to the common grace of God, and the way your mind observed the world confirms what you already know.
@@sly8926 Your response feels like a flat assertion. Maybe I'm missing your point.
@@23Hiya Basically, to answer your question, God gave us gifts to help us come to know him better; things like logic, reason, morality, love, emotion, science, consciousness, memory, intelligence, etc.. That’s the biblical claim from God himself, assuming you believe
Good question. These words are meant to describe reality. The word itself is arbitrary but the word describes something that actually exists. These questions deal with ultimate reality, and such questions can’t be proven because you can’t step outside of reality, so every proof you give would come from reality. You could use the “how do we know” question for any axiom. How do we know that other minds really exist? How do we know the past is real? How do we know whether our dreams are actual reality and what we cal reality is really a dream? You have to take these on faith. You could be right that things like goodness and greatness really exist, but do you live your life as if greatness and goodness and straightness don’t exist? These ideas weren’t just created yesterday. There is millennia of thought behind these concepts and outside of a good reason to deny the existence of goodness or greatness or straightness, they are as solid as anything else in reality.
@@sly8926 at this point in my life I'm very much an agnostic about the Christian God. I remain curious about how people defend the platonism that makes the ontological argument possible. Thanks for engaging.
About the positivity of a perfect being, the perfect being does not appear to infer God, so would be good to connect a perfect being to God. Also, in the parody of the perfect island, since the perfect being does not appear to connect to God, can their be a parody of the perfect 5 beings? It is good to bring with your argument a wealth of analogies to better drive home your argument, and strengthen the argument by bringing it under intensive scrutiny in a serious debate. Keep formulating new arguments, Josh, we need resourceful thinkers like you in the Christian forefront of thinking
Super smart, super cool, super nice guy!
So this new ontological argument has the same anatomy, and the same anatomical problems as all the others.
To make an ontological argument, you just have to do three things in any order:
1) Define the god as having some ill-defined superlative property.
2) Define that property as entailing existence.
3) Make a bunch of noise, to prevent yourself from noticing what you've just done.
I disagree, John Kneeshaw.
I argue from our universe needing an uncaused cause, and I don't claim God has any superlative property I can think of.
@@20july1944 then you are not making an ontological argument.
@@johnkneeshaw8008 You're right, I'm making a cosmological argument, but the important thing is whether God exists or not -- not whether I'm making an ontological argument.
Would you agree with that?
@@20july1944 No. Not really. While the question of whether or not the god exists is important in the general sense, it's not relevant to the video, as the video is about an ontological argument, specifically. If you want to make cosmological arguments, go to a video page about that and comment there, or even better, make your own video.
That said, I've seen you tossing your cosmological argument around in this comment section and found it silly and unpersuasive. Furthermore, your arguing style is belligerent. So I'm not inclined to engage with you.
@@johnkneeshaw8008 I disagree. The key question is always the underlying reality, not how cleverly a specific kind of argument is made. This isn't a philosophy class, it's real life, with our real welfare really on the line.
Really John, you irrational POS.
I'm still not convinced by the ontological argument, but I am intrigued by the fact that all the arguments against it are even more ludicrous. No amount of childish atheist parody even amounts to an argument.
What does Josh mean when he says if we can “see” X,Y, or Z? does he mean if we can conceive of something?
Some questions/observations re. the slide at 32:00 (note the numbers below relate to the paragraphs, not necessarily to the premises in the slide):
1) What is a 'positive property?'. Aren't properties neutral? And if not, if you take a property such as strength, for example, and claim it is a positive, it is only positive in comparison to an opposite or something _less_ positive it entails, ie: 'weakness'. Yet we know weakness some sometimes be a positive property (ironically, that 'weakness' can sometimes be a strength). As a trivial example, the crumple zone of a well-designed car.
2) Is not 'absolute perfection' also neutral? The only example of perfection we have is arguably that of the current state of the universe, or the current state of anything in it, for these things could exist (as far as we know) in no other way, and no other thing that is more perfect is known to exist.
And by what possible standard is something measured to be 'perfect'? If absolute perfection is positive, then the current state of the universe is positive, with all the tremendous suffering it entails. This seems like a dubious claim.
3) If absolute perfection does not entail a negative property, how can it possibly be positive? Surely positivity can only exist in comparison to something that is _not_ positive.
4) How would one being be any more 'perfect' than another? Again, by what standards would this perfection be ascertained? We come close here to the Euthyphro Dilemma, in that if such a perfect being was measured against an external standard, there would exist at least one thing (the standard) for which the being is not responsible, and if this is the case the being cannot possess 'absolute perfection'.
And if the standard is determined by the being, then perfection is arbitrary and subjective.
And if no being can be more perfect than another, then all beings are neutral, and the spanning of all possible worlds by a theoretically perfect being becomes irrelevant and/or impossible.
5) Therefore, the Conclusion (7) seems unfounded.
How do you determine the difference between imaginary beings and beings that exist outside of your imagination?
There the same in your head.
@@davidjanbaz7728: Perhaps you should re-read the question. I’m asking how you determine differences. You seem to be trying to point out similarities. At least one of us is misunderstanding the other, and I’ll be the first to admit that I’m one of them.
@@seans5289 no, you missed my joke of your implementation . That they are the same thing because you're implying you can't tell the difference.
First the usage of (imaginary) is a red herring atheists like to use for supernatural beings and in their comic book = the Bible fallacy . Real cities but only fake characters.
You question wasn't without biased.
How do prove supernatural beings don't exist?
I think you can tell your imaginary ideas from others: but not from a culture that lived 4-2 thousand years ago where gods contacted people and did things when people made sacrifices to them.
Why would they continue if they weren't getting any gods to get things from: like increase crops, increase population, and safety from enemies.
You're the one who told me you studied Mythology. Usually there is some truth in these stories.
The Bible is Mythohististry and not imaginary stories.
@@davidjanbaz7728: I asked how you tell the difference. You’ve done anything but answer that question. The usage of imaginary was from how it was used in the video.
@@seans5289 I think imagery beings are in your head. They can also exist in fiction.
How would you even perceive of a supernatural being outside your head unless they reveal themselves to you in a way your senses can perceive them.
If they exist in another dimension: you would never know or see them.
Or as Jesus did in passing through the walls into the room where the disciplines were locked in ; post Jesus resurrection.
But Jesus the Logos came from a different dimension through the Spirit of the Most High and entered the physical world and took on a human body:
something that we can interact with.
But you can still believe Jesus was only a myth and therefore an imagery being.
The argument does not state that the negation of a positive property is negative, but I'm assuming that is what is intended. That assumption or something like it is needed for the argument to work. We need to know that there is at least one negative property for the argument to work. If the negation of a positive property is negative, then not being a MGB is a negative property. This is merely a technical point.
Could someone please put time stamps.
if god is perfect than we would be perfect beings. a perfect god cant create imperfect beings
I think it is pretty bold of you to assume that a perfect God could not create imperfect beings.
By Christian theology, God gave man dominion over the Earth. To truly be able to give one dominion over anything, one must give them true ability to decide.
Simple Christian theology. For God to have created creatures with dominion, He must have made them with the ability to choose imperfection.
@@coltonmoore4572 what? by definition, perfection cannot create imperfection.
@@mikebrigandi_ What do you mean by perfect?
God is maximally great and morally perfect.
Moral perfection can very well include creation of beings that can make their own decisions.
Being maximally great does not mean that everything you create is also maximally great.
I dont see where the contradiction is.
@@mikebrigandi_ This comment is. so interesting Mike. But I did have a thought I’d love ur feedback on.
Wouldn’t that imply that a perfect being is incapable of creating anything? Since any creation he could make wouldnt be as maxiamally great as him, and therefore not as perfect as him. At best it would be quasi-maximally great and would not perfect since God would be a perfect standard that the quasi-being simply couldn’t meet in principle.
But you would think that a maximally great being should be allowed to create something if he is Omnipotent right?
Is this thinking persuasive to show that, by definition, a perfect being can create imperfection?
@@mikebrigandi_
I don’t think that a perfect being can’t create imperfect beings. I will make some arguments in support of my thought.
Caveat: I will be using “being” as simply any existing thing, animate or inanimate.
Firstly, modally speaking, it isn’t logically contradictory for a perfect being to create an imperfect being. The perfect being could be thought of as being A and the imperfect being as being B. So, A can create B, even if A is different from B. Just as how I can create a house, even though I am different from a house.
Secondly, a perfect being could create imperfect beings as a means through which other perfect beings would come about. The imperfect beings aren’t created as being able to experience emotions or thoughts, so it is perfectly in line with the perfect being’s nature to create like so. For example, it is possible that a perfect being creates imperfect tables as a means through which perfect tables will then come to exist.
What do you think?
For those trying to connect the dots for the entailment line (32:00 in the video) for how premise 5 follows from premises 1-4, after racking my head around, I finally understood the logic of the argument.
Let's assume premise 5 is false (for the sake of contradiction). Then it is false that absolute perfection is possible, which means that absolute perfection is impossible. But if absolute perfection is impossible, by premise 4, it entails all properties. If absolute perfection entails all properties, then it entails negative properties. But, by premise 3, absolute perfection cannot entail negative properties. Hence, we reached a contradiction (we derived that absolute perfection both does and does not entail negative properties, a contradiction), which means our assumption that absolute perfection is impossible was false. Therefore, absolute perfection is not impossible and is hence possible. This is premise 5.
Now I just need to understand why Rasmussen thinks premise 1 is true. Because that is what the entire argument hinges upon. I also feel like I have some counterexamples already, but I first want to understand the idea behind premise 1 before I try formulating arguments against it.
(@Odis AQW) "Now I just need to understand why Rasmussen thinks premise 1 is true."
We can take premise 1 to be true by definition. We can say a property that that implies its negation does not fit our conception of what a positive property should be.
The problem is that if we do this, then before we grant premise (2), that absolute perfection is a positive property, we must show that it satisfies our definition of a positive property, which means we must show it does not entail its negation. Working in predicate logic, it means we need to show absolute perfection is a possible property. But that was supposed to be a conclusion of the argument.
On the other hand, we can take premise 2 to be true by definition. We can say that it seems to us that perfection just is positive. But if we do that, then before we may grant premise 1, that positive properties do not entail their negation, we must show that in particular absolute perfection does not entail its negation, which means once again we must show absolute perfection is a possible property. But that was supposed to be a conclusion of the argument.
This is why the argument doesn't work.
That was really good, thank you for sharing that
What makes a property positive or negative? Is it normative?
First!
@48:26 is the most crucial summary statement to his message.
Can anyone summarize in a nutshell what he just said?
Am I missing something, or does this seem like an argument that combines the logic of the modal ontological argument and the model perfection argument so he can start from the concept of God instead of the metaphysical possibility.
just produce this god.
Maybe I'm just too dumb or biased but I can't conceive of concluding a god exists from philosophy.
It's ignorance, not stupidity or bias.
And lets image you did concieve in your mind and are convinced the perfect being aka god exist. What now? Can you show a link from this being to YHWH. Christ, Alla, Krishna, Btullhu? You cant... so the arguments ulimately leads to nothing
The proposition whether or not God exists is a metaphysical question requiring metaphysical evidence, or proofs.
Biased, maybe, but your not dumb.
Most atheist are of the mind, or have been convinced, that the only way to view the world is by scientific evidentialism, while ignoring the fact that no one lives that way.
I wouldn't presume to convince you of anything but if you're genuinely interested it may be of benefit if you'd make a serious examination of the arguments for God's existence and move on from there.
Many of the online athest are not professional philosophers and regularly misrepresent the structure and basis of these arguments.
Peace.
@@tihomirvrbanec9537 How so? We just proved a God exists. There are further arguments for religion being true, such as Bayesian arguments, arguments for the resurrection, etc.
@@SunlightSentinel I conceded that point although for me personaly you didnt prove anything. But now prove a link from "a perfect being" to YHWH or Krishna, many religions have many claims to superiority...
That was terrific!
In regards to your 45:06 remaining worry that we might not have not evidence that shows Good doesn't entail evil, but rather we don't yet see it the negative within the bad:
Good and bad are opposite concepts. Positive properties and negative properties are opposite concepts. Good-making properties and bad-making properties are opposite concepts. Light and dark are opposites as well. You can't have a shadow on top of a beam of light. You can't have light within a shadow. You have one or the other. It's the same with positive (or as I like to say, good making properties) properties. They can't have negative within them. Like light can't have dark within. Or dark can't have light.
Cameron’s objection : this notion is very technical, so maybe there is a problem there. How is that an objection?…
My brain hurts.
What is CCv1?
1st Capturing Christianity conference - I think.
The only problem I have is what makes something or someone "great" what if someone thinks be all knowing or all powerful makes something great, if I Knew everything my life would be way worse, nothing would be a surprise, i wouldnt be be curious, there would be no excitement or motivation to learn
My new understandings of what many call 'God' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us. My autobiography explaining how I, and others I've told, have used this chant to successfully change our poisons into medicine titled: 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within', is now available at Amazon Books for 99 cents (the lowest Amazon allowed me to price it)
You can also read more about Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo in Tina Turner's new book: Happiness Becomes You -- or you can Google 'Let go and let God' by Olivia Newton-John.
Interesting idea, but i don't think that this escape the first barrier. if other concepts with their own implications are derived from the definition of God then, at best, you have proven that these concepts are related. But there is nothing there about an actually existing being.
The concept of a concept, is not itself "in" the concept, is "about" a concept, in the same way that a concept about me is not the same as me, the concept of me is a representation of me, similarly the concept of a concept is a concept about the representation of a concept, but that representation can be false and that does not imply that concepts do not exist, therefore it is not necessary for a concept to exist that its representation exists or that it is true.
So, as far as I understand, the contradiction with the empty concept principle fails.
Another problem is the relationships between absolute perfection and purely positive perfection, I honestly can't understand how one derives from the other or from the definition of god.
Also, how any of this is different of a fiction?? if we hold that for something to be true then it has to correspond to a fact of reality, that is to say, what the concept is about corresponds to a fact of reality, how ontologicals arguments do that??
if the empty world principle is false, then there could be concepts that pick out some things that must exist, but that does not entail that the existing of something is because the concept picked it out, surely that thing exist even if no concept picked it out, So an argument from the concept is not an argument for the thing that exists, but simply for what that concept represents, if we want to prove that things exist then other evidences will have to be provided, not only is it not clear that mere conceptualization can prove that the thing must exist, it is also possible, as I have said, that the representations are false.
I think the cases for concepts is different because just by having the concept of a concept instantiates the concept therefore it has to exist because it at least exists in one particular case, that is it exists as the concept you have.
@@cliffdee2 That is obviously false, there is no reason to think that the concept of a concept should be in nature different from any other concept, if that where the case you will have to explain how and why. A concept does not instantiates the thing that it is about only it representation, and that is pretty obvious, for example does the concept of nothing instantiate something ("the" nothing)??. Or think in the concept of an electron, most people thinks of it as a tiny ball of matter with negative charge, and even that been usefully at some level of analysis is obviously wrong, but neither the concept of an electron nor the electron requires its representation to be true in order to exist.. False, wrong or misleading conceptualizations exist, and that is because the representation of the thing does not correspond to the thing (partially or complete in which case it can be say that the concept then is not about the thing)
Not only that, what you describe let you to a vicious regress, if the concept of a concept instantiate the concept then the concept that has been instantiated also instantiate the concept, since it is a concept it self, and this can continue ad infinitum
@@diegonicucs6954 Concepts do not have to represent anything outside a concept and I think they don't have to have a truth value. For example, let C=the concept of a unicorn. What C is about does not exist but C itself exists. We are taking about C right now. Is C true? C is neither true or false, it just is. There are concepts that are representations of things that are not concepts but thats not the only type of concept.
@@cliffdee2 don't see how that connect with what i have said, so let me be more clear. there is the concept and what the concept is about, I will call that the content. When I said the it is true, i mean that the content correspond to a fact of reality that is independent of the mind that holds the concept, therefore when i said that is false or misleading or wrong, i mean that the content is either a fiction (unicorns) or is a misrepresentations of the thing that exist in reality independent of the mind. You can also have "tools" for example logic or mathematics, is you are a platonist then this correspond to a fact of reality independent of the mind, if you are a nominalist then you can say that they are fictions, but nonetheless useful tools. Either way you end up making the same distinction about whatever the content correspond or not to a thing in reality outside of a mind
So concepts in nature are no different from each others whatever the content is about a fiction or not. If you want to postulate a theory that show differences in nature of concepts, go ahead
Now, the content is itself is a bunch of others concepts, but they are not the same concept so the content of the concept of a unicorn is not the concept of a unicorn, if that where the case, then every single concepts will be empty and would imply a vicious regress, but rather is what we understand about a unicorn, which probably will include a horse + a horn. So the content of a concept about a concept, is not itself but rather whatever theory we hold about concepts, for example if i say the concepts are mental states, then the content of a concept about a concept will be mental state, whether or not it corresponds to reality is another story and that's why the counterargument does not work
To play devil advocate, I think you have the implication backwards. Yes the concept of a concept is a representation, but it is still a concept. So if there is the concept of a concept, then there is atleast one concept, namely itself. Is it possible that the representation(concept) simply does not in any sense exist? Maybe. That doesn't change the implication.
ADD this to the Jenga Tower of bad arguments.
A lot of bad arguments combined don't make a good argument or proof.
LOL
Sanjeev: do you understand how a star works, why it is hot and bright and doesn't last forever?
@@20july1944 How old is the Earth ?? About 6000 years ?? OR About 4.5 BILLION years ??
@@sanjeevgig8918 About 4.5 billion years.
I argue for God's existence without referring to the Bible, using only science and logic.
Are you interested in my argument?
@@20july1944 DEFINE this "god." Does this god intercede in life on Earth in 2022 ?
@@sanjeevgig8918 Yes, He sometimes does, but that's not the key issue pertaining to God. The 100% certainty is that you will meet Him when you 100% certainly die, IF He exists.
Honestly, the certainty of death is why the question of God's existence is vitally important, not just a topic for mental masturbation or limiting arguments to the "ontological."
If there were an unexploded bomb under your house, you wouldn't limit your analysis to properly formatted ontological arguments -- would you?
@30:02 “NO possible world where P is instantiated”
Did Josh get possessed by Jordan Peterson when he said “no?” LOL
Gouda is better than sharp cheddar btw
Does God have the negative property of not being me?
That's a positive property actually
Does anyone actually find this compelling? That is, is there someone who'd didn't believe and then heard this argument and then did believe? It is IMO an absolute nonesense way to try to prove a God.
Agreed, this is unconvincing even if there's a vital kernel of truth buried inside.
To be valuable for persuading interested laymen, an argument has to be comprehensible and ideally intuitively obvious.
@@20july1944 I think it depends on a person's disposition. Few people can be persuaded to believe something purely on logical grounds that do not have some intimate or immediate connection to their daily lives. If I present a mathematical proof that there are an infinite number of prime numbers, most people will not be persuaded by the proof per se. They will more likely find the proof to be compelling precisely because mathematicians and experts in the relevant field find it so. Their disposition to draw an inference will be heavily influenced by the authoritative support. And I'd go so far as to say that this holds even if you were to sufficiently explain all of the premises to a person such that they fully understood them. That one will draw the inference from that information alone is a matter of having a certain disposition that no amount of explicit knowledge is sufficient to change. That's not to say that one's disposition cannot change at all. They just need to be habituated by exposure and engagement with the right materials and sorts of activities of the same nature, such as abstract philosophical reasoning. I agree that, generally speaking, only a person immersed in the most abstruse philosophical material who engages in abstract philosophical reasoning often could ever be persuaded by the ontological argument by itself, assuming it's sound.
Which of the premises do you disagree with, and why?
Hey why does he refuse to debate jay dyer ? Please give your audience a chance to hear his voice .
Does Jay Dyer discuss the ontological argument?
Oh yeah
If I am not mistaken, Dr. Rasmussen is trying to prove a perfect being exists. Once I say "being" this means he has a beginning. God by definition does not have a beginning.
Jesus cannot claim the creation because he occurred into the universe and found it already there. That's why krishna and Buddha did not claim to be the creators because occurred into the universe.
Being does not mean he has a beginning. Being just means existence, and in this case, in the form of consciousness.
Jesus existed before he became human. He is God. God is creator. So Jesus can claim to be the creator
Jesus, in cooperation with the father, and holy spirit, created the entire universe and everything in it. And then stepped into his own creation.
Read the first chapter of the Gospel of John.
And being has nothing to do with having a beginning.
Jesus did make an extortionary claim; I can agree there.
Um, no. Hindu here. Sorry but your idea about lord Krishna coming into existence reminds me of the way many Muslims argue against the divinity of Jesus by denying the incarnation and using their denial of it as evidence against the incarnation. It's begging the question. Of course God could come into human form ; because He can do anything. It isn't the beginning of His existence ; it's the beginning of one of the things He just happens to have done exercising His free will. To assume that such an action (a hypothetical incarnation in the case of Christ and the hypothetical descent of the form of God in the case of Krishna ) implies the beginning of the being in question ; is arbitrarily assuming that this should imply an existential beginning ; which it does not and only would imply a beginning if both respective candidates for God are not God : but that is the entire question. If you use this argument against it, you aren't giving evidence against it but interjecting your prefabricated position on the question into the argument and expecting everyone to argue their way out of it using Islamic doctrine ; which we don't believe in and therefore will not be doing. By the way ; lord Krishna claimed on multiple occasions to be God ; making the argument that He was just a misunderstood prophet doesn't work if you've read our scriptures. Sakyamuni Buddha did not ; that I'll grant.
@@gospelfreak5828This is basically a denial of the doctrine of the incarnation on the part of OP : not because he doesn't believe that such a thing would be possible (because Muslims agree that God is omnipotent ), but because the Quar'an says otherwise. Little does he know *gasp* WE DON'T ACCEPT THE QUAR'AN AS SCRIPTURE 😧 and therefore it would be very strange to offer us its stance on Christology as evidence against the incarnation.
Josh seems closer and closer and being an apostate these days.
Seems odd to say the truths exist. Truths are true, but in what sense to they exist? Seems to me that to say "there are truths" seems to me a short hand for atleast some prepositions are true.
Also the final argument is not valid. Premise 3 is a property, so an impossible property would it entail it. Would that be contradictory? Absolutely, that's kind of the point of explosion. It implies every property, including their negations.
I feel stupid, I can't understand this
Edit: see comments below for revised thoughts :)
The Principle of the Empty Concept is presented as follows:
"For any concept (C), the mere existence of that concept (C) _does not_ entail the existence of what that concept (C) is about."
If this principle is false, then its logical opposite must be true:
"For any concept (C), the mere existence of that concept (C) _does_ entail the existence of what that concept (C) is about."
Let these principles be referred to as P1 and P2 respectively going forward for ease of discussion.
If P2 is accurate to reality, there are two possible interpretations of what that would mean:
1. Conceptualizing a thing will somehow beget that thing in the real world (conceptualizing a unicorn will beget that unicorn)
2. Conceptualizing a thing is somehow only possible in the first place if the subject of conceptualization already exists (conceptualizing a unicorn is impossible, since there are no unicorns to be conceptualized)
However, neither of these two interpretations are accurate to reality. I can conceptualize a life-sized statue of myself made entirely of cheese, and yet no such statue comes into existence. Similarly, I can have such a concept without the subject of that concept already existing. Consequently, we can safely conclude that P2 is not accurate to reality. And, as P2 is the logical opposite of P1, this verifies that P1 is accurate to reality.
Frankly, I do not see how Josh's counterexamples were germane to the analysis of either P1 or P2. From my perspective, Josh doesn't even appear to be attacking the correct idea when he mentions the examples of "a concept of a concept" and "a concept of a property." If somebody knows how these were meant to be used as counter-examples to P1, I would greatly appreciate clarification :)
P2 is not the opposite of P1 lol. If P1 is false, that does not mean P2 is true.
P1 is a universal generalization, "for ANY concept (C)...", it is sufficient for it to not hold for at least one concept (C) for it to be false.
It's like you're saying that if "any crow C is black" is false, then it follows that "any crow C is not-black". It doesn't follow. Your whole argument falls apart from there.
@@runningdecadeix4780 hmm let me try and think through this again, I might see where Josh was attempting to take this now.
P1 could be rewritten as, "there is no such thing as a concept which necessarily entails the existence of its content." In the case of a concept of a concept, this rule would appear to not hold true. If you have a concept (of a concept), then necessarily concepts must exist, otherwise how could you have a concept in the first place? This is an example of a concept which does necessitate the existence of its content, and I think this may be where Josh was trying to bring the audience.
I would argue that there is a special class of concepts which do indeed break P1: any concept whose content is in some way descriptive of a concept. E.g. the concept of a concept, the concept of a property, and the concept of about-ness would fall into this class, since concepts are concepts, concepts have properties, and concepts have about-ness (every member of this class would essentially boil down to a tautology). In this sense, I suppose I agree with Josh. But I would still argue that any concepts which fall outside of this special class of concepts (ones which are not reducible to tautologies) are subject to P1.
@@calvinwithun6512 By concept of concepts , do you mean , like , There is a concept of circles and there is an umbrella concept which includes the concept of circles , which is the Concept of concept of circles. So , the Concept of concept of circles would include concept of triangles , concept of squares , etc. So , in a way , Concept of concept of circles is the Concept of shapes.
So if concept of shapes exist , concept of circles necessarily have to exist because there wouldn't be shapes or concepts in the first place for the concept of shapes to exist if concepts/shapes were impossible. So in this case , The concept of shapes entails the existence of it's content , which includes the concept of circles.
Did I get this right?
@Calvin Withun now the problem is that your formulation of things is ad hoc and is also engaging in special pleading. P1 has just been proven false by counter-examples, yet now you are trying to salvage it by making it allow for the counter-examples in question while still barring the conclusion of an ontological argument. "Every concept (C) is such that its concept does not entail the existence of that which they are about, except those which are descriptive of a concept (because these DO entail the existence of their content!)" this is textbook ad-hocness and it makes the principle a lot less plausible - in fact, worthless in the context of ontological arguments as it becomes question-begging with special pleading. What is it about concepts that make them magically exempt from the principle? Just the fact that they contradict the principle, because they entail the existence of that which they are about. Well, the concept of a perfect being might also contradict the principle! And in the same way some other concepts do - by means of a logical entailment that we might miss the first time, but figure out later on. The only reason P1 was a plausible objection in the first place is because it was a universal generalization. If it's no longer the case that concepts cannot entail the existence of what they are about, because some concepts (e.g. concept, intentionality, property) logically entail the existence of their content, then P1 is now worthless. The whole point of an ontological argument is to show that the concept of God/perfect being/etc. logically entails the existence of the content.
It is exactly the same case as that with concepts, properties and the like. It just might be harder to see (if it is true), requiring more steps.
To put it differently: we in fact know that some concepts do logically entail the existence of that which they are about. So? This might be the case with a perfect being, it is EXACTLY what ontological arguments might show, just like with other concepts such as intentionality, concepts, properties, etc. And one cannot try to avoid that by saying that no concept can entail the existence of that which they are about; we know this is false, now it is just a matter of exploring and seeing what concepts might or might not entail the existence of things they are about.
@@Nithin_sp hmm well, I would structure it more like this:
You have a circle, and a square, and a triangle. Then you have the concepts of circles, squares, and triangles. Then, you have the concept of shapes in general, which is an umbrella category under which the previous concepts fall.
Though I would argue that this umbrella concept does not necessitate the existence of all possible concepts which could fall into it. For example, while the concept of a shape with 183,646,247 sides _would_ fall into the umbrella concept of shapes, it probably did not exist until I just thought of it while typing this comment. There will always be shapes which have not been conceptualized by anyone, since there are an infinite number of shapes which could in principle be conceptualized.
Now, if instead of dealing with the concept of shapes, you are dealing with the concept of (the concept of circles, the concept of squares, and the concept of triangles), then in order to even have this conceptualization in the first place, you must also conceptualize the concepts being conceptualized. It becomes a sort of tautology, since having the umbrella concept at all necessitates that the nested concepts within it are realized. But this only works when you have a very specific umbrella concept, not when you have a vague and abstract umbrella concept. Or at least, that's my position on it
IMHO, you have to explain why a necessary thing must be a perfect being. If you can do that, then you will have a compelling argument for the existence of God.
I'd subscribe if you didn't place a commercial every 7-10 minutes.
This talk begs for full concentration, and as you hopefully understand commercials disrupt that concentration.
"1. There is a concept of a perfect being. "
Which concept of a perfect being are we talking about? It seems to me there are potentially many billions of concepts of a perfect being, and while any of these many billions may share tons of properties, it is also possible all of them vary to some degree. If so, then there is not "a concept of a perfect being". There are only people conceiving of what might be perfect. But such conceiving necessarily includes negative (thus invalidating premise 3). We simply can only pretend to conceive of perfection because each of us would come up with our own conception of a perfect being. Even if we try and suggest that a conception of a perfect being must only contain positive properties then we still end up with the same because each conception must decide which is positive and which is negative, which inevitably will lead to contradiction when comparing and contrasting each person's conception of a perfect being.
This suffers the fate of each ontological argument. There is no reason to assume the premises.
I have really hard time wrapping my head around how people find these types of arguments convincing....
This guy is basically just defining his god into existence. I've said this before, if god only exists in philosophical arguments, than god doesn't exist.
I'm a Christian and I agree with you -- I really don't see any value in this whole thing but I admit I don't understand or care about philosophy for that very reason.
Which of the premises do you think are flawed, and why exactly?
No matter how much you desperately want your cult of Christianity to be true it never will be please grow up Cameron. Wishful thinking is gonna make it true.
Do you know how a star works? Why a star is hot and bright and doesn't last forever?
Please show evidence for claims that you make, or refute claims of others.
This comment is not productive in any way, and it does not add to the conversation.
No matter how much you desparately want your cult of Non-Christians to be true it never will be please grow up. Wishful thinking isn’t gonna make it true.
#MakeItMakeSense
Keep licking that blackstone 😂😂
@@LarryRuffin-vy7hx I love simply reversing the polarity on a meaningless claim like that.
Ontological arguments don't work, they are silly, and there seems to be a change of meaning of words (possible worlds).
He should have just stayed in bed instead of wasting everyone's time.
Philosophical possibility does not entail actually no matter how much one attempts to dress it up. Analytic statements are insufficient as claims about reality.
Abstractions aren't existent things. Thus, the statement there are no truths is actually correct in the context of reality.. Truth is an adjudication predicated on a logic system (conceptual construct) and thus not a real thing in the context of reality any more than the rules of a game. However, I do grant the necessity of cognitive constructions for any exchange.
In the context of conceptual linkages, the statement there are no truths is false with regard to the various conceptual models since it is the case there are many models that have truth designations.
Numbers are abstract.
"There are no truths" contains an obvious contradiction within itself.
You're use and understanding of "philosophical possibility" is demonstrably wrong.
Maybe try reading an actual philosophy book.
@@utopiabuster
I would suggest you reread the comment carefully. If you still don't see the point I am making I will explain in detail.
Please show this error you are claiming of me with regard to philosophical possibility.
@@MyContext ,
It's obvious you're able to navagate the internet.
May I suggest you avail yourself of the enormous resources of Google.
@@utopiabuster
I suspect you are missing my point. There are two different contexts of review.
1. Truth is a product of mind and thus not a feature of reality. Thus, in this context there is no truth since such is not an aspect of reality.
2. In the context of various cognitive models, truth is an adjudication within that cognitive tapestry. Many will grant the idea of truth existing in the mind, however, even as I am sympathetic to such an idea, I do not find such a depiction to be accurate given that I take adjudications to be processes and thus not correctly denoted as a static of any sort.
Based on what I know, I am in sync with the consensus of philosophers who reject philosophical possibility as an actuality. Thus, I requested substantiation for your opposition to my dismissal of philosophical possibility.
It might also be noted that I employ paraconsistent logic, so the idea of explosion does not apply to my modeling.
@@MyContext ,
I'm sorry, but what is on your mind, likely what you consider "true", thereby a refutation of what you think you're saying.
It is true that the "hydrogen atom" is an electrically neutral atom containing a single positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron bound to the nucleus by the Coulomb force.
It is true that all men are mortal.
In effect, truth can be established by the fact that we are in a discussion on a UA-cam channel.
Unfortunately, you're entire premise fails.
Thanks for playing clueless.
So does god have a property of a perfect pizza or is pizza a negative property and not a part of an absolute perfection? I think a humble person would say that we don't and likely can't know what the foundation of reality is.
An even more humble person would say we don't and likely can't know that we don't and likely can't know what the foundation of reality is....etc. etc.
How do you know that the foundation of reality is unknowable? Aren’t you here saying that you DO know what the foundation of reality is? That it’s something that’s unknowable?
Well that would mean u can know the foundation of reality, but in ur comment u said u cant
@@LarryRuffin-vy7hx "we don't and LIKELY can't" There was no claim to know it's unknowable
So, a state maybe it is. 😆
@@LarryRuffin-vy7hx Thats a very smart observation. How did I not think about it.
Meh. Should have stuck with unicorns. At least they have a discernible ontology, about which can have concensus. 🙄
Nothing here means heaven or hell exist .I can't begin to tell you the scholars who will tell you believing the bible is in vain . God was not whispering the theologies and speculation in it
God doesn’t allow suffering, God created it Isaiah 45:7. Read it and weep..,.
You can actually deduce through logic that unicorns existed. You just need to study history and etymology along multiple language heritages. Turns out unicorns were just one-horned rhinos.
EDIT: semi-related but I just love this one: And Behemoth was an accurate description of a massive sauropod dinosaur. More accurate than modern understanding of sauropods was until the last twenty or fifteen years.
AMEN. BRUH'VE REALLY CLOWNING 😂. If God made a square circle then I can make a triangle with no sides 😆. I really enjoy and appreciate your content Cameron and Capturing Christianity because your work in Christian Apologetics is bringing about awareness and the furtherance of The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ our to this young generation of believers and unbelievers alike. This has nothing to do with the video but please listen if you want to otherwise leave it alone and ignore it. Hello my name is Justin and I'm a fellow Christian and Apologist but I'm also a college student. I'm not a closed minded Theist as I have nothing against Atheists or unbelievers as I speak to them often to understand their reasons for unbelief but we as Christians are convinced of God's Existence due to many real factors). I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince anyone to become Christians as that's The Holy Spirit's job to help people believe but only explain why I believe in Jesus Christ. There's actually evidence of God's Existence in Christianity. First of all there's proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed in history since the writings of Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the younger and other historical documents prove that He was living two thousand years ago that even scholars both religious and Atheists agree with historically speaking but not that He's The Divine Son of God because obviously they don't.
I'm going to give you historical and archeological evidence for God's Existence as The Scriptures have prophecies that predate the events recorded in them by several millennia including Matthew, Hosea and Zechariah which prophesy accurately of the people of Israel becoming a nation again after over 1900 years of being scattered around the nations since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. spoken of by Christ in Matthew 23:29-24:3 and returning to their homeland after The Holocaust with Jerusalem as their capital in 1948 exactly as Jesus The Christ said. The prophets including Daniel spoke of the time where several world empires would arise and fall including the Babylonian kingdom, Medes and Persians, Roman Empire, and Saladin and the Muslims which went in consecutive order for the past few millennia. The people of Israel becoming a nation after The Holocaust in 1948 (ironically the melting point of gold as God compares Israel to gold that's tested in fire in Zechariah 13:8 and Jeremiah 16:15) exactly how Jesus The Christ said would happen since God us everything to come in The Scriptures and not just because people were working towards as Atheists claim which are impossible for any regular man to predict.
Just before anyone says Christianity is a white man's religion made to oppress blacks during slavery you obviously aren't aware that the first Christians were Jews in The Middle East and that Christianity just like any religion can be used by evil and corrupt people to oppress others but you forget that the first Abolitionists/Civil Rights activists were Christians who sought to abolish slavery, racism, segregation, injustice and prejudice throughout American history. Jesus The Christ loves you enough not to give you what we all deserve which is God's Wrath by His Own Blood. Charles Darwin didn't originally come up with The Theory of Evolution over 200 years ago as it is mentioned in the writings of Ancient Greeks who believed in Demons that gave knowledge to philosophers.
Evolution makes no sense when nothing has evolved after thousands of years of human history and supposedly the first creature came from primordial sludge several millions of years
ago funny how they won't believe that God an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being created us from the Earth) which came from a supermassive expansion of matter at high temperature that inexplicably created everything in the known universe that supposedly came from nothing billions of years ago. How did the organs evolve before there were bones, skin, substance and how did any creatures see before eyes evolved? I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" and I'm not convinced of but not macro or micro Evolution because there's no evidence of it nor clear observable examples of it where living creatures evolve into other kinds of species plus the fact that fossils don't show evidence of evolution and genetic entropy rules out evolution. The question begs how did two genders evolve from a common ancestor with a perfectly hospitable and sustainable environment with breathable oxygen and resources to survive on inexplicably? Atheists have the burden of proof to explain how everything came to be and why our existence is possible without the Existence of God from an godless perspective just as Christians have to provide evidence of God's Existence and the validity of His Word.
Evolution requires life to already exist in order to take any effect in living organisms so it doesn't account for the existence of Life and reality. Also evolution is impossible because it goes against The Law of entropy and the second Law of thermodynamics because evolution makes things better whereas nothing continues to get better but decays and turns to absolute destruction in the end. Mark Ridley an Evolutionist said "No evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of The Theory of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to special Creation". God's Existence is made perfectly known and observable in the universe as demonstrated in His Handiwork in the intelligently designed manner that Creation was made, human consciences and consciousness historical and archaeological evidence of God's Word being valid history, fulfillment of Bible Prophecies God in His Holiness and Righteousness could give us what we deserve in Hell for our since but He's merciful to give us free will to choose to accept or reject His gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus. I don't mean this is any condescending manner but if you'd like to discuss The Scriptures with me or have me listen to your view on anything my instagram account is Savage Christian Kombatant.
Do you think some is going to read your word salad. I won't.
@@derekallen4568 Who cares because obviously you do and thousands of people read my comments if they're interested so GET OVER YOURSELF 😂
How does evolution go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
You do know things can and do come together? So that discredits your whole bit.
Also iv pointed out you quote mined Mark Ridley. You and other creationists purposely cut off that quote and what he says next. Talk about dishonesty.
Now to share how the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated.
The Problem of God byvJonathan Pearce
A Perfect Being would be “All Knowing” ( Omniscient ) and Completely Free. But Omniscience and Freedom clash. They are not compatible. If God were “All Knowing”, then He would be determined to do what His knowledge stated He will do. He would not be free ‘to do other than’ what His knowledge stated He will do.
God would not be able to think up any new thoughts nor have any original ideas because that would be providing God with new knowledge and that would mean that He really was not All Knowing. If God were “All Knowing”, it would mean that this World by necessity had to exist. God could not have refrained and not created this World because His knowledge stated that this World would exist.
If God were “All Knowing”, then you end up with God’s knowledge having Sovereignty over God. God can’t be free. He is bound to always do what His Knowledge tells Him He will do. Hence the Ontological Argument fails.
Why does perfection entail freedom? The validity of your argument also depends on wether God's will acts over time or outside of time. If God freely determines his will outside of time, then there is no contradiction in God knowing what he will choose in the future. You can also redefine omniscience so that God knows all potential future states and the causal chain leading to those states, but the true future does not exist to be known until he has decided what particular causal chain of events will happen
@@victorvelie3980 As it says in the video ( around 31:00 ) -
1. No positive property entails a negative property.
2. Absolute perfection is positive.
3. Therefore, absolute perfection does not entail a negative property.
A Being who is bound and not free can’t be Perfect. Being bound is a negative. Lack of knowledge is also a negative. If God does not know what will exist until He decides what will exist, then He has a lack of knowledge ( which is a negative ).
If God’s knowledge is perfect and God lacks no knowledge, then there was never a place in God’s mind where He did not know that this World would exist. God could not have refrained and not created this World because if He had, then His prior knowledge of this World existing would have been false ( and that would be a negative ).
All Knowing and Freedom are not compatible. God having All Knowledge leads to that Knowledge controlling God ( which is a negative ).
@@TheMirabillisSo are you still a bitter atheist now, or have you changed your spots yet again?
@@20july1944 I have never been a bitter atheist.
@@TheMirabillis I'd say you are a bitter atheist, you sure sound like one.
Are you still an atheist, or have you changed your mind again?
its a bit sad to see these apologists just twisting words to defend their gods, instead of god just showing up from his eternal hide
The ontological argument may not be good, but there are a number of good arguments for the existence of God, say the Kalam cosmological argument.
@@kenandzafic3948 no its not good, the kalam is like the worst argument of all, and the worst thing about all of those arguments are its all just arguments,nothing empirical ,arguments are just something to make you feel better about your impotent god
@@icangbelang527 I don't see anything here except mocking the Kalam cosmological argument which is just a fallacy, Kalam is a serious argument and God is not impotent, are you just throwing out words at random?
Let's take it easy, the first premise states that the universe could not have come into existence without a cause from nothing, do you agree with this premise?
@@kenandzafic3948 to me a god that lets a child gets raped is impotent. Period
@@icangbelang527 We will deal with the problem of evil later, this is a red herring, I asked if you agree that the universe could not have come from nothing.
If God actually did exist you wouldn't have to go through logical gymnastics like this to prove that he does exist it would be evident to everyone that he does. If you go with this guys logic you could prove that all religions gods exist and that would be not possible if the god of christianity is the only one true god QED
No, God could exist and conceal Himself -- nothing impossible about that.
This objection is an overused atheistic cliché, the purpose of such arguments was never to prove the truth of any religion, so the objection is meaningless, and that for God to be obvious, that is, to appear to us, you have to prove it, it is not enough to just bang and think you said something clever.
Oh good grief, what rubbish.
I'd like to discuss the question of God's existence based on science, logic, and the available evidence.
Would you like that?
@@20july1944 Ok, we'll see how it goes.
@@Whatsisface4 Unfortunately, YT doesn't tell me about responses, so this will be hit/miss -- I apologize for that.
We know for a fact that our universe is not infinitely old, right?
If it were infinitely old, it would be in heat death -- right?
@@20july1944 Agreed.
@@Whatsisface4 OK.
What preceded our current matter/energy and what caused it to arise?
There is no god but Allah. I'm just kidding.....there is no god.
"...there is no god", is a claim to knowledge.
Mind demonstrating it?
@@utopiabuster In 140 BC Epicuris said: "Either god is unable to stop natural disasters, is able but unwilling to stop natural disasters, or god is imaginary. Therefore god is either impotent, evil, or does not exist." Therefore there is no god. QED. And by the way, a god that does not prevent natural disasters deserves neither my respect nor my worship.
@@larryfulkerson4505 ,
Seriously?
No one in academia, on either side of the fence, considers the "argument from evil" any challenge to God's existence.
The argument has been satisfactorily addressed.
Thanks for playing so last century.
@@utopiabuster
Actually, there are many who take the problem of evil as a death blow. I consider it a death blow as well. It was what made me wonder why are the adults lying as a kid.
We *don't* label those that could stop an atrocity without harm to themselves - good.
However, I it seems that you don't understand that the problem of evil dismisses the idea of an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent entity. So, perhaps this will help...
P1. God is denoted as a non-contingent intelligent entity.
P2: Intelligence is a process
P3: Processes are contingent
P4: Intelligence is contingent
C1: God is denoted as a non-contingent contingent agent (via P2 - P4)
P5: X cannot be both X and NOT X
C2: God is impossible (via C1 and P5)
Hopefully, this is enough to see the fiction of God claims - like square circles
@@larryfulkerson4505 I'd like to discuss the question of God's existence based on science, logic, and the available evidence.
Would you like that?
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument.
*Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23)
------------------------------------------------------------------
The end is near?
*The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme:
Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came)
Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’.
Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’.
Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.*
Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man)
Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.*
1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent)
1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.*
Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.*
1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord.
Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son.
Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.*
James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.*
1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.*
1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.*
1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming.
Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.*
Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.*
*It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.*
www.kyroot.com/
*Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on UA-cam
Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"*
Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"*
Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"*
Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"*
Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"*
Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"*
Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"*
Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"*
Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
Zachary Watson: Do you understand that our universe hasn't always existed?
Yes is has.
@@derekallen4568 No, if it always existed it would be in heat death.
@@geoffschnoogs6888 This isn't a new discovery worthy of a Nobel.
If our universe has always existed, it would already be in heat death an infinite time into the past.
Do mean our local universe, or the cosmos?
Cameron: I've been doing you a huge solid that others could emulate: every time I refresh this page to continue chatting with atheists on these threads, I let the commercial run for the required 13 seconds and you pocket the results!
Wow. One minute in and he explains how his god is imaginary.
So, your God is a character that exists in your imagination.
Arguments sound to me like excuses for not being able to demonstrate a god exists outside of the imagination. If you could you would.
"Arguments sound to me like excuses..."
Nice self refuting argument there champ 😂
Hahaha, what do you mean by "demonstrate that god exists", isnt that the purpose of arguments. Or do you think god if he exists should and must be demonstrated empirically by say, the scientific methodology??? Dude, you are not coherent even in your own comment🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@mugsofmirth8101 how so?
@@scooby3133 I'd like to discuss the question of God's existence based on science, logic, and the available evidence.
Would you like that?
@@20july1944 the claim by christians is a God character exists, is present at all times, limitless abilities, interacts with people, created everything, and so on.
Seems to me this character should be easy to demonstrate unless is actually just a character imagined and believed to be real.
So, go ahead, show the world your God is not only imaginary but also objectively real. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A living sentient being? Then present a living sentient being. Arguments are just excuses for having to resort to imagination to reconcile a God in reality that is not actually present
Atheistic materialism is self refuting.
Theistic immaterialism is redundant
What do you mean self-refuting? Refuted by evidence is different than self-refuting.
Streets: Are you an atheist or just agnostic?
@@20july1944 just atheist
@@blamtasticful meaning the philosophy refutes itself.
First, atheistic scientists say human beings don't have a mind.
Second, this needs a more coherent explanation on the front end, and, listing needs to be one item at a time so one is not distracted with a full listing.
This is one of the most difficult explanations to follow of all of the ontological arguments I've listened to scientists make. He needs more practice setting up this argument.
The arguments apart from concept of perfection are crystal clear in all other ones that all creation exists because of an intelligent designer outside of or transcendent of all creation: cause of the universe, fine tuning of the universe, fossil record of complete body plans without any evidence of slight incremental changes from one species to another, cause of all life from the irreducible complexity and foresight in all creation, especially the single living cell and body plans and organs, etc.
God exists because of three irrefutable points....1. He was portrayed in "Oh, God" by George Burns and George Burns was the perfect comedian. 2. He was portrayed by Morgan Freeman in "Bruce Almighty" and Morgan is the perfect actor. 3. He was portrayed by Alanis Morrisette in "Dogma" and Alanis is the perfect singer. Quod erat demonstrantum
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Matthew 11:28 KJV
Jesus lives
Jesus Christ is Lord
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:23
Jesus loves you repent
You're a sinner in need of a Savior
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10 KJV
The sad thing is that Dr. Rasmussen seems to be the kind of person who could successfully push the boundaries of mathematics or physics. He clearly has the academic drive and thirst for knowledge and the needed ability of complex abstract thinking. But instead he "believes" and so uses his talents to add more sprouts to the monstrous word salad that is modern philosophical theology.
Ivan: I share your contempt for philosophy. Are you an atheist?
And you *believe* that the use of buzzwords like "word salad" and vague descriptions like "modern philosophical theology" makes for a clever statement worthy of consideration.
@@mugsofmirth8101 I admit, my comment "isn't worthy of consideration" in the sense that it brings some new insight. It wasn't meant to be. It is what it is - an expression of sadness of lost opportunities.
And it is not just a "buzzword" if it perfectly fits;)
@@20july1944 I'm an atheist, but have no contempt for philosophy, just for the parts deformed by faith to a meaningless mess of vacuous terms.
@@ivanvnucko3056 Oh.
I'd like to discuss the question of God's existence based on science, logic, and the available evidence.
Would you like that?
The Gospel:
Plain and
Simple
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent
beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity
that is in Christ.” - 2 Corithians 11:3
Ask someone today if they are saved and
you will most likely hear responses like these:
“I have accepted Jesus into my heart.” Or “I
have made him Lord of my life.” “I’ve been
baptized.” “I said a prayer.” Sounds all good
and churchy don’t it; but it is difficult to de-termine whether or not a person actually
knows the gospel that saves them. These useless phrases don’t describe a thing about what
the gospel is and has left a devastating effect
of people not knowing what it is that they are
saved from nor how they are saved; which
leaves a more serious effect of people questioning their salvation.
Let’s not muddy the simplicity of salvation that is in Christ with vague church
sounding phrases that do not communicate
anything. But rather present God’s word with
clarity and assuredness. So here is the gospel:
plain and simple.
Sin was passed upon all men by one man
Adam, and death is a consequence of this sin
(Rom 5:12). Mankind has an eternal destiny of
condemnation and wrath - Hell - because of
this sin (Rom 6:23). No matter what good
works one might do we are still found sinners
in the sight of our Creator God. And all unrighteousness and those who follow get indignation and wrath. We cannot be found
righteous for by God’s law we are found sinners (Rom 3:19-20). If we have broken even
one law we are found guilty.
It is for this reason of not being able to
create our own righteousness and being born
in a sinful flesh that we need a savior (Titus
3:5). Christ is that Savior, God manifested in
the flesh, sinless, died in our place on a cross
2000 years ago. Taking upon him the wrath
and judgement that was intended for us sinners. And it is through his bloodshed, burial,
and resurrection on our behalf that we are
able to have peace with God and forgiveness
of our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4, Col 3:14). This good
news is unto all but only those that believe in
it are made righteous in Christ (Romans
3:22).
It is then after we have heard this good
news of Christ’s righteousness available to us freely, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit
and we are now part of Christ’s body the
church (Eph 1:13)
There is nothing that we need to do, no
good works that are required, and no bad
works that can separate us from our new position in Christ (Romans 8:35-39).
Faith and belief in this information from
God’s word is the gospel.
The gospel is not accepting Jesus into your
heart. The gospel is not making him lord of
your life, it is not saying a prayer and it is not
being baptized with water.
So next time someone asks you if you are
saved. Give them the clear assured answer
“Yes! And let me tell you why!”
Find more free resources at:
www.graceambassadors.com