Dear Viewer: If you believe that my critique of the MOA is flawed, then by all means, explain how. I want to know where I am mistaken so that I can correct myself in the future. Yet the overwhelming majority of negative feedback has been nothing more than a casual assertion of "you're dumb" and nothing else. It leads me to suspect that you people all subconsciously understand how stupid the MOA is, but just cannot bring yourselves to say it out loud.
I think you did a great job dude, it's okay when people say that "you're dumb". Just like me, I just asserted that God is self contradictory to the believer, then he said that I must check my IQ in psychological tests and must die first to prove it, lol
I would just like to add that the presentation at 4:30 is flawed in that it is possible to have a valid argument in the structure of '1. X is possible. 2. Blah blah 3. Therefore, X exists.' as long as 2 is a synthetic proposition. For example: 1. X is possible. 2. Y is true. 3. X is the best/only explaination for Y. 4. Therefore, X is true. This approach is basically the scientific method. Now, I am not claiming to be an expert at this, so if there is some mistake with how I view this issue feel free to point it out. This is also a largely minor point considering the argument being deconstructed is only working with analytic propositions and is therefore unable to make a synthetic conclusion.
@@DaizyDPK It seems to me that Premise 1 is just redundant. You could leave it out entirely, and 2-4 would still be perfectly reasonable, don't you think?
@@AntiCitizenX I have thought about it and I would like to agree in principle, since this is just semantics about what a "best explaination" is. If being a good explaination entails being possible, then yes it's redundant, but if not then it's not. This is beside the point however since a redundant premise doesn't invalidate an argument, does it?
Who says Christian apologetics has no practical application... *Walks into a bank* "Can I help you?" "Yes, I'd like to withdraw a million dollars from my bank account." "Um, sir, you don't even have an account with our bank." "Is it possible that I might have an account with this bank?" "Well, sure but you..." "So we agree that in some alternate world, I might have an account with this bank." "Uh, but in this world..." "...and surely we could agree that an account with a million dollars in it would be a great thing, right?" "Well, yes, but..." "...and how could it be a great thing if it didn't exist." "Wait, what?" "So since it, by definition, must exist to be a great thing, my account with one million dollars in it does exist." "That's ridiculous." "Are you suggesting that an account with a million dollars in it wouldn't be a great thing?" "No but..." "Fantastic! Now I'd like my million dollars please." *Gets thrown out of bank*
I do not know if that would be the way a logician would construct this argument or proper modal logic, but it sounds exactly like Fundie logic... therefore well said! :D
Which is why it sucks to be a Jew, a Muslim, or a vegetarian of any faith or lack thereof. Also, it makes the Flying Spaghetti monster a second rate god.
I think Russell best described the problems with every ontological argument. He said "the real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thought?" Since we can't prove solipsism to be wrong, I think the answer is clearly "NO". Russell goes on to say, "If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things, if not, not." People who use the MOA think modal logic is just such a bridge, when it is not. Also, I think it's pretty funny that IP says that the MOA is "the best argument for the existence of god" but he also says that it isn't meant to persuade you that god actually exists. The "best argument for the existence of god" doesn't actually persuade you that god exists? That's very telling.
Do you know where he admits that it is not meant to persuade? I don't think it is in his orignial video. This admission would make a nice video unto itself.
I remember an older video from dasamericanatheist (that I just rewatched) where he claims St. Anselm originally devised the ontological "argument" as a meditation on God's nature to better understand God devotionally rather than as a way to convince nonbelievers of his existence. More of a "how God exists" statement rather than one substantiating that God exists. This may be why IP thinks it's the best argument for God while not being persuasive: it encapsulates his theology and what he thinks about the nature of God, but it won't capture the attention of anyone that doesn't already hold such views. In that sense, it isn't a very effective argument at all. Ontological arguments always seem to be used as "gotcha" arguments against atheists, a simple way of saying "See? Logic proves my beliefs! Checkmate Atheists!" IP says basically that in his video when he states, like a sophist, that the MOA when presented correctly is "impossible to refute."
Is the MOA a rebadge of the arguments from Thomas Aquinas? It seems like everything I've heard lately from the religitard apologists boils down to Aquinas' proofs #2 and #3.
@@christopherlin4706 It's not a matter of omnipresence. It's a matter of whether the condition of Natalie Portman being his girlfriend is necessary for all possible worlds.
I think the flying spaghetti monster is greater simply due to the fact that he is all that the Abrahamic God is, and maximally delicious. I doubt the Abrahamic God is maximally delicious.
+Miope What about Kalam? "The Universe MUST have a reason, therefore MY god" (with a couple of more steps only half of which deserve to be called "logical"...) These two could be siblings as it all stems from defining god as having EXACTLY the right attributes so that the argument WILL conclude he is necessary for it all to make sense. AND ignoring that "there must logically be a god" does not give you a photo of its passport, so "there must logically be Yawwy" is NOT what the argument says, only what a believer will read into it because obviously there cannot be any other god fitting into the argument.
No, it's great. Let me show you how great it is. Ok, I will now use the ontological argument to bring into existence in my pocket, the most valuable possible diamond. Ahem. Ok. So let us consider the set of all possible valuable diamonds that could exist in my pocket. A diamond that exists is necessarily more valuable than a diamond that does not exist. Therefore, the most valuable diamond in my pocket is one that does exist, rather than one that does not exist. Therefore, there is a maximum possible value diamond that could possibly exist in my pocket, that necessarily exists in my pocket right now. I will now check my pockets and find this diamond and therefore be set for life...... checking my pockets............ why didn't it worrrrrrk!!!!!
+Andrew Brown It is possible that cup of coffee exist in some possible kitchen table. Therefore a cup of coffee exist in every impossible living rooms. If you don't accept this proof, you're an idiot!
+MomoTheBellyDancer, writes _"With or without cream? Think carefully. The fate of your eternal soul depends on your answer."_ Without obviously, with cream coffee is just a poor man's latte.
1) Things that exist, exist. (law of identity) 2) Things that exist necessarily are a subset of things that exist. (definition) 3) Therefore, things that exist necessarily, exist. (from 1 and 2) 4) Wizards are things that exist necessarily. (Definition) 5) Therefore, wizards exist. (from 3 and 4) 6) Voldemort is a wizard. (definition) 7) Therefore, Voldemort exists. (from 5 and 6) Fucking with definitions is fun, isn't it Christians?
+a foul thing "The argument is ironclad. The beef is with the premise that affirms that God possibly exists." Sorry, I obviously do not have a good graps on the written form of modal logic or any other systematic approach to the subject, so excuse my curiosity / disbelief... Let me say it in words as *I* do understand this though... layman terms. Shouldn't it be "...that affirms that God *necessarily* exists", as you have started out the chain of arguments with "god exists only if he necessarily exists"... making that in my understanding the bottom most premise to the god proposition... That later on "necessarily" is equated or coupled to "possibly" existing should not overwrite that or should it? Basically it comes back to something the video has already said: Necessarily only comes into play through the definition of that being an attribute an "maximally great" being HAS to have. IMO "Possibly" is waving your hand or jingling the keys to distract from that, but Necessarily is just the same as saying "if we define god as a being that MUST exist he logically DOES exist" and the definiton is arbitrarily chosen and does not hang on any logical conclusion of its own. And another thing... wouldn't the modal ontological argument work for ANY deity, as long as you include the necessary bit in your definition of it? I'm not sure how that is a good thing for theists... it again does not prove their claim, only the logical possibility of defining AN god into existence... whose identity afterwards requires additional confirmation... Kalam all over again. (both with the defining into being halfway through so that the conclusion is forced and with the jump to "Hey who would have thought... turns out it is MY god... what a coincidence!")
P1 it is possible that a maximally great being concerned with the salvation of our souls exists. P2 A desirable trait for a maximally great being concerned with the salvation of our souls is to be visible. C. from 1 and 2 Since no maximally great being concerned with the salvation of our souls is visible then no such being exists..
You're just denying all the visible, caused design in the finely tuned, intelligent pocket watch, created for this beach, that clearly didn't pop up next to the ocean from nothing, ffs. Checkmate
Exodus 34:14 - "Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Unless jealousy is now a positive trait, the bible god cannot be a "Maximally Great Being" now can he?
Ah, but by the definition of objective morality, (morality passed down by an objectively good source) jealousy (or coveting) is objectively wrong. Therefore, God is objectively *not* an objectively good source. Therefore, the tenant against coveting is no longer objectively wrong. Therefore, God is no longer objectively not objectively right. This goes on for a while.
Who said anything about a positive trait? Anyway, how is it less maximally great to be jealous? If you were rich and famous, that would be good, but if you were rich, famous AND jealous, that only ADDS to you, doesn't it? "Great" doesn't mean "satisfies your standards of what you consider positive".
@@medexamtoolscom Great means "of ability, quality above the normal average" so if we consider your rich and famous person jealous, jealousy would have to be positive in order to make it better quality. So yes. It does have to be a positive trait. When we consider something better quality we don't consider it such just because it has more features. Even if we did, with the way language works, jealous is a value term, so if something it is comparatively not jealous, then it still has the same amount of features, because you could call the thing that is "not jealous" something else, e.g. "content". Now comparing your rich, famous and jealous celebrity to a rich, famous, and content celebrity, it's clear to see which most people would prefer. So the "quality" (i.e. "greatness") of the latter celebrity is more so than the former.
@@twoofskulls7076the mistake you are making is that you are importing your own standard of greatness. How is the quality of jealousy bad? By whose standard is it bad? If you wife/gf sleeps with another man is it bad to be jealous? Would a great wife give reason for jealousy?
As a Christian, I agree with most of the things that were said in this video. The things I highly disagreed with are that "nothing is necessary" and that possible implies "maybe exists or maybe not." I think a formulation of the LCA proves that there is something which is necessary. Possible just implies "maybe exists." However, not "maybe not." Example: A necessary thing is possible but it does not fail to exist in any possible world. So "possibly not" or "maybe not" is excluded. Other than that, it demonstrated my thoughts about this ontological argument. I suggest this formulation of the Leibniz Cosmological Argument for proof of a necessary being that explains all contingent things: (1) Every contingent fact has an explanation. (2) There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. (3) Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. (4) This explanation must involve a necessary object.
But that argument is impossible. If premise 2 is true, you can´t possibly know that premise 1 is true. You don´t know whether a contingent fact can or cannot exist without explanation, and if you define a contingent fact as something that can´t exist without explanation, you can´t know that anything is contingent.
Christian Forbes You don’t know what a Maximally Great Being is: A MGB has the following characteristics: He is “a necessary being” (a necessary being exists in all possible worlds. It cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world. It is greater (better) to be necessary than NOT to be necessary - which would mean NOT existing in all possible worlds) He is wholly good He is all-knowing (omniscient) and He is all-powerful (omnipotent) A key point to remember is that although God is all-powerful that does NOT mean that he can do the illogical. For example, he can’t make “square circles”. He can make “squares” and “circles” but not a “square circle” b/c the definition of both of those concepts contradict each other. Another example would be that God cannot make a “significantly free person” (meaning that the person can freely choose between right and wrong)- and then force the significantly free person to do right. If God did this, the person would not be “significantly free”. This would be a contradiction of the definition of what it means to be significantly free. Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, 1974, p. 45-53
I wonder what the people in the Lord of the Rings Universe think of this video. I know they haven't invented computers or internet, but it's got to exist in that universe since this video is maximally great.
I literally started laughing when you said i can imagine a being with all of your qualities plus my being is able to beat yours in an arm wrestling contest there fore mine is greater that was Awesome :)
Thanks for this one. I have had some long discussions in the comments sections with IP about this one a couple years ago. What bothered me the most was probably "necessity" and how subjective values like "greatness" suddenly can be viewed as being both objective and also have a "maximum" level all of a sudden. I remember I asked where the "necessary" aspect of god can be derived from, but since this argument isn't based on observed reality, the entire concept of god must apparently be constructed from conjecture. I never received a satisfactory answer from him on that one. I am happy to say I spotted most of the problems you adress here, but I really appreciate you putting them into context and explaining the proper terminology. It's one thing to "sense" that something's wrong with an argument, but when the right words are missing, it's hard to explain why. Thanks again.
"It's one thing to "sense" that something's wrong with an argument, but when the right words are missing, it's hard to explain why. Thanks again." It always makes me happy to hear this. I think this may be one of the few things I can uniquely contribute to the movement that many others struggle with.
The necessity of God can be understood by considering the possible categories. God is either metaphysically contingent or metaphysically necessary. God cannot be metaphysically contingent, because inorder to be so, in a given possible world, the statement "God exists" would need to be able to be true at one point and false in another based on some other criteria. However, if we posit God in a possible world, then the statement "God exists" is necessarily true for that possible world. That is to say, that at no point would the statement "God does not exist" would ever be true within that possible world. There is no metaphysically possible entity or scenario which could make the statement "God exists" or even the statement "God does not exist" true within that possible world. This means that God cannot be metaphysically contingent, and therefore must fall into the category of metaphysically necessary entities.
@@joshuayoudontneedtoknow9559 _"God cannot be metaphysically contingent, because inorder to be so, in a given possible world, the statement "God exists" would need to be able to be true at one point and false in another based on some other criteria."_ First, Why use the word "God" here when "X" should suffice? There is concept creep and baggage in the word "God", as you know. I also want to point out that "God" can certainly be contingent, depending on what you mean by it. _"However, if we posit God in a possible world, then the statement "God exists" is necessarily true for that possible world."_ Sure, and that would be true for any other concept as well. But to determine that "X" is possible requires we first determine that whatever you mean by "X" actually can exist. (The concept of God isn't necessarily incoherent but whether anything can "exist" outside of physical, temporal, observable existence is not something we should merely assert.) _"...This means that God cannot be metaphysically contingent, and therefore must fall into the category of metaphysically necessary entities."_ No, possible in one possible world is not the same as necessary in all possible worlds. I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. I agree that the first event at the beginning of time is necessary, but calling it "God" is premature --- especially since we both know that the word "God" isn't a particularly neutral word. So, this argument does not prove God as "necessary", it just calls the first event "God" in order to skip from possible to necessary.
@@Bonko78 We can certainly use a variable here. In this case, any X such that X is not both metaphysically possible and metaphysically possibly not at the same time must either be necessarily so or necessarily not so. So, something like the mathematical statement 1+1=2 would not be metaphysically possibly true and metaphysically possibly not true at the same time, because as a mathematical statement if it is true, it is necessarily true and if it is false, it is necessarily false. "God" is a being with this same quality. It isn't true that the statement "X exists" is necessarily true for all X. For example, there was a point at which I did not exist, so the statement "I exist" isnt true necessarily. The same could be said for all matter and energy in the universe, because the statement "the universe exists" wasnt true necessarily either, especially since it came into being. The fact that matter and energy are interchangeable means that at one point matter can exist and be changed, so the statement "matter exists" isnt true necessarily. Water can be broken down chemically, such that the statement "water exists" wouldnt be true necessarily either. I'm not sure that there is any real logical inconsistency with the idea of something existing outside space time, as long as it wasn't physical. This doesn't guarantee the existence of such a thing, but it does make it metaphysically possible, as long as it doesn't violate the laws of logic. I'm not speaking of necessity in a merely causal sense, but rather a metaphysical one. This would entail that anything which is metaphysically necessary would exist. If any X were not metaphysically contingent, then it must either be necessarily X or necessarily not X. This would be true independently of whether or not X was the cause of the universe or whatever possible ways that reality could have been.
@@joshuayoudontneedtoknow9559 Unfortunately, one can not simply make "God exists" _true by definition_ since the statement "God exists" does not contain definitions that allow us to evaluate it's truth value. It is not an _analytical_ statement (like "1+1=2") but rather a _synthetic_ statement which requires knowledge beyond the mere meaning of the words to determine their truth value. Even if you were to merely change the definition of "God" to contain some implicit truth value, it would just be the stated definition of the word "God" and would have nothing to do with whether a God exists beyond the dictionary.
One of the problems with ontological arguments for the existence of God (modal or not), as well as other rhetorical arguments, is that if you don't already believe in God, then the argument is unconvincing, *but*, unless you have a good philosophical training, it is not easy to point out what exactly is unconvincing. It should also be unconvincing for a theist who's not blind by confirmation bias. This video by AntiCitizenX is a good start for being able to understand why and when this argument begs the question.
It doesn’t beg the question. A MGB has the following characteristics: He is “a necessary being” (a necessary being exists in all possible worlds. It cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world. It is greater (better) to be necessary than NOT to be necessary - which would mean NOT existing in all possible worlds) He is wholly good He is all-knowing (omniscient) and He is all-powerful (omnipotent) A key point to remember is that although God is all-powerful that does NOT mean that he can do the illogical. For example, he can’t make “square circles”. He can make “squares” and “circles” but not a “square circle” b/c the definition of both of those concepts contradict each other. Another example would be that God cannot make a “significantly free person” (meaning that the person can freely choose between right and wrong)- and then force the significantly free person to do right. If God did this, the person would not be “significantly free”. This would be a contradiction of the definition of what it means to be significantly free. Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, 1974, p. 45-53
@@Monday2705 I'll try to be short. Premise 2 begs the question as it basically says "If (X thing defined by people as necessary) possibly exists, then X exists". Assuming that the Maximally Great Being is God and not some other being also begs the question. The free-will defense falls apart on many levels. 1) Us "flawed, sinful" beings see plenty of good reasons to justifiably interfere with free-will, such as with rape, murder, genocide, etc. If we are moral enough to try and intervene and stop those, violating the free-will of the criminal in the process, why isn't God moral enough do the same? 2) Saying "There might be good reasons..." is an entirely useless statement because there also _might not_ be good reasons. That's like saying "Hitler _might_ have had good reasons for the holocaust." Until you can actually give me a good reason, it's a completely useless statement. 3) The argument that God want's to prioritize free-will is inherently self contradictory if you believe we can't sin (or have our desire to sin removed) in heaven. If so, God's endgame goal was to make us "automatons" incapable of doing evil anyway. 4) The idea of Free-Will itself contradicts several bible verses on predestination, such as John 6:44, Romans 8:28-30, or Ephesians 1:4-5,11-12, Revelation 13:7-8, or others. 5) The idea of Free-Will itself contradicts the idea of God knowing the future. If he knows I'm going to sin in the future, that event is now deterministic, and I have no free-will in the matter. All solutions to this either sacrifice God's omniscience/timelessness or our free-will.
@@JohnSmith-xf1zu P2 only begs the question if saying a triangle has 3 sides begs the question. That God exists follows logically from the fact that God is a necessary being. It would be a logical contradiction for God to not exist just as it would be a logical contradiction for a triangle to have 4 sides. You can call the MGB whatever the fuck you want. It can be a pixie, a fairy, or whatever random string of letters you prefer, it's just semantics. If the entity in question has identical properties to God, then it is God no matter what you call it. Regarding free will: 1. God has done something. He's created moral agents who can recognize evil acts and that will freely act to prevent them from occurring. Otherwise, you will have to show that God MUST prevent all evil acts, otherwise he is immoral. Good luck with that. 2. That God might have sufficient reasons is a simple defeater for the argument from evil. You are arguing that is impossible (and therefore must prove that God cannot have good reasons) or improbable (and therefore must prove that it is unlikely that God has good reasons) for God to exist and allow evil. Comparing God to any human fails as a comparison because God is able to know all future outcomes of an act. Hitler could not know what good, if any, would result from the Holocaust, but God would know and therefore might have morally sufficient reasons for allowing it to occur. You would have to prove that it is impossible or improbable for such reasons to exist, which is just pure speculation. So long as such reasons COULD exist, there is no contradiction. 3. Free Will and God's goal being contradictory has a simple defeater as well. That being not having a desire to sin is a result of a free choice made to spend eternity with God. Therefore it is not God that forces people to not sin, but people who choose to be with God and no longer sin. If God forced everyone to choose him, that would be a violation of free will. 4 and 5. Yes, it is God who calls people to faith. That doesn't mean that people can't freely reject God if they so choose. Omniscience does not contradict free will. Knowledge has no casual relation to action, that is God knowing something does not cause it to occur. God knows what will happen but that knowledge does not necessitate what must happen. God's knowledge of the future is then in that sense temporally prior by logically anterior to the act in question.
@@grantgooch5834 Golly been a year on this, but I'll try to get back into it. But before that, I know this is kinda long, so feel free to only address parts that you want to keep discussing. I also might not get back to it for a while, as I've got a lot of upcoming work, and I won't always have the mental wherewithal to write an essay for a UA-cam comment. Anyway... Pulled straight from the Webster Dictionary website: Begging the question means "to elicit a specific question as a reaction or response," and can often be replaced with "a question that begs to be answered." However, a lesser used and more formal definition is "to ignore a question under the assumption it has already been answered." The phrase itself comes from a translation of an Aristotelian phrase rendered as "beg the question" but meaning "assume the conclusion." There's no way for me to tell if there is actually question begging or not, as you never provided a question that needed answering with it. But I can roll with it. So suppose somehow in some hypothetical world we had no idea that a triangle has three sides and didn't agree on the number three, and cannot readily demonstrate a triangle. When trying to determine the number of sides a triangle has, simply saying "I define triangles to have 3 sides...therefore triangles have 3 sides" would still be question begging. You are assuming the conclusion in premise one. So going back to the ontological argument, pretty much every version includes some version of "necessary existence" or "necessary being". As defined by R_NO, "A necessary being exists in all possible worlds. It cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world." This is literally defining it as something that "exists" and "cannot possibly not exist", which is a double negative that resolves to "it exists". Saying "exists in all possible worlds" is just saying "exists in the actual world" with extra steps. So the ontological argument is a long winded way of saying "I define God as a being that, among other things, exists.... Therefore, God exists. QED" This is assuming the conclusion in the premises. Hence, Question Begging. And we could also go into the subjectivity of what could be a maximally great being and what that would look like, since "great" is an inherently subjective word, but I'll leave that for later to keep this already long post more brief. 1) I'm a little surprised that I need to explain this, but people claiming to be moral and good, if they see a rape and have the power to stop it, they ought to stop the rape. If they have the power to easily stop it, but instead turn away and don't provide help or only do things that they know won't help at all, then they are not being a good person. Let me ask you, if you saw someone being raped, and you have the _guaranteed_ power to stop it, either with a gun, calling the police, maybe your big muscles, or something else, would you stop it? I would, and I believe you would too, because I'd like to believe you are a good person. So why doesn't God if he's good? And (please stop me if I'm getting ahead of myself) if the answer is something like "God stops some but can't stop all without violating freewill", as I've heard many times, what percentage or rapes need to be kept around in order to say we have freewill? And what would truly be lost if we didn't have the "will" to rape, or we we're at least prevented from carrying it out? Is the possible "will" to carry out rape really so important? Are there not some sufferings entirely preventable while still allowing other lesser sufferings? 2) If saying "there might be good reasons" is a defeater, then by that logic, the Holocaust must be fine because Hitler might have had good reasons. Do you see the problem here? I'm not saying it's impossible he's got good reasons that we don't know. However, until someone is able to demonstrate them, Hitler is still a mass murdering genocidal maniac. I don't need to prove 100% that there's no possible scenario where there might be a good reason in order to say that about Hitler, do I? I just need point out that no such good reason can be or has been reasonably demonstrated. But you've turned around and have said there might have been good reasons for the Holocaust. Okay, demonstrate them. If you can't, you cannot justify the claim that there are good reasons for the Holocaust. And TBH, you might want to take a step back for a second. As you have now put yourself in the position of believing that there may be good reasons for the Holocaust, that we "might have morally sufficient reasons for allowing it to occur." Take a step back for a second and think about how you are literally defending the existence of Nazi death camps with "IDK, something good may or may not come of it". Just some honest concern from me to you. 3) Freewill implies I have the will to choose something else, does it not? If you guarantee that everyone will make choice A and no one will chose choice B, that means there is no "will" to choose choice B. According to scriptures, everyone chooses choice B at some point "There is no one righteous, no, not one", "for all have sinned and fallen short", etc. But suddenly B is no longer an option people have the will to take. The will of people has suddenly changed such that people no longer have the will for option B. That's not free will. But maybe we can come at this from another direction. Do you believe as some do that Satan was thrown from heaven for his sins? Does this not imply that evil can and will be done in heaven, making this an entirely mute point? 4) I've heard this answer before. Let me ask you, do you believe God has made sufficient and unambiguous revelation to everyone, and has predestined everyone for heaven? The reality or religions and the world and my own life would certainly not imply so. However, if so, then these are entirely meaningless verses. If not though, then God has predestined some people for hell. The Revelation verse seems to imply the latter. "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world." 5) I'll try putting it in a more direct way with an example. Suppose I walk down a path where I can turn left or right. If God knows I will go left beforehand, and I do, then he knows the future. (Or made a lucky guess, but we'll assume omniscience in this case). If I turn right however, I show that God did not know the future beforehand. In order for God to be right, I must walk left. Since God knows beforehand I will go left and cannot be wrong, I can only walk left for this to still be a true statement. So the option of turning right is off the table for God to be omniscient. Predetermined, 100% certain, knowledge of the future _does,_ in fact, "necessitate what must happen". For if anything besides that happens, then it was not 100% certain knowledge of the future (omniscience) by definition. We cannot have both "I chose to turn right" and "God knows beforehand I will choose to turn left". One of those statements must be false. Either I cannot have the freewill ability to choose right, or God cannot have his omniscient knowledge that I will turn left.
@@JohnSmith-xf1zu I would like to add: what about free will of rape victim? Victim doesn't want to be raped, so why is rape allowed to happen by god(s), do(es) god(s) care more about free will of rapist than free will of victim?
What I like about these various versions of the ontological argument, is that they all hinge on God having all the omni-characteristics intact in all their glory; maximally so. Then, when you encounter the omni-characteristics in other discussions about God's properties, suddenly they're not so 'omni' after all. Eventually, God is defined as a being that can do all the things he can do.
Apologetics intentions are very simple - make as many arguments as possible, show them to others and convince them. And if fail, make more arguments and try again. I used to be like that too, then i learned about logical fallacies and to focus more on argument quality instead of quantity.
Am I the only one who thought the MOA was at least a cool puzzle to solve, like a Rubik's Cube? I have to admit the argument had me going for a for a couple of minutes until I reached the conclusion even Plantinga admits as an alternative response: I don't know an MGB with the property of necessary existence is possible, therefore I don't know that it exists in any possible world. I like Craig's more forceful approach, that it is upon the opponent to prove and MGB impossible, as if agnosticism about it's possibility is not an option. Of course with Craig, though I like his style, everything is supposed to be a forced conclusion. He wants to back you against the wall like the jouster in his Reasonable Faith logo.
So excited when I saw this title. 3 years ago or so, I talked to IP about this video when it was brand new. I knew him personally, actually. My counter argument was that if god exists in all possible worlds, then where is god within Spongebob Squarepants? Where is god within this crappy cartoon I just drew? I also talked about the subjectivity of "greatness", and how by this argument a maximally great taco must also exist by necessity. Its not like "greatness" is an objective, measurable attribute. I've seen a fair amount of videos addressing this argument, but none that have spotted such fundamental errors from the very first sentence. Great work! though in my opinion, a little harsher than your norm.
You actually knew him personally? I can only imagine what kind of weirdo he is in real life. The guy's videos are just so scrambled that I can only imagine him as a terribly dysfunctional human being.
@@AntiCitizenX Honestly man, i watched one video of yours, loved it, subscribed, and then watched this one. I imediately dropped the sub like 2 minutes in. There is literally no reason to be so rude to some one you don't know about this topic. That is so immature and completely shredded my respect for your channel. If you want to spread your ideas, being even moderately respectful is step one.
@@aibrainlet8041 1 - it is possible that you are subscribed at AntiCitizenX channel 2 - Al Brainlet is necessarily subscribed at anticitizen x channel 3 - therefore, you are subscribed at AntiCitizenX channel
i have a pretty simple refutation to this "argument" which uses their same tactics. 1)it is possible for a world without god,to exist. 2)god is defined as "a being that exists in all possible worlds" therefor god doesn't exist.
@@greganzi8874 what about the peano axioms, which only describe the natural numbers, never mentioning any god nor being able to do so or a world which only consists of one photon or a world which consists of no particles at all, not even god's constituents. All of these seem to me extremely consistent ( i doubt you to find an inconsistency in such a worlds ). And, since they have no inconsistencies, they are on the set of universes we are analysing
victor duarte Peon axioms don’t apply to the real world though, unless you belive in a very radical form of platonism (and I think any but the most simple forms of platonism are inconsistent with atheism). Either way, inconsistency in math is extremely controversial, due to Godel’s incompletness theorem, you can’t really talk about “complete” systems unless they are finite, even then it is still slightly controversial. So, just because there is no god in any of the proposed axioms or any possible theorem, you still can’t evalue the truthness of the existence of god. So that also applys to the single photon system (even though I don’t agree it is a possible universe, because there would not be a causal chain). As for a world without god’s constituents, it assumes god is physical, which is also controversial at best, as most religions, and even philosophical concepts of god determine him to be imaterial.
@@greganzi8874 From my understanding of the arguments, all the "possible universes" we were talking about were only logically consistent ones, which all of my examples are. If you have some other idea of what a possible universe is supposed to mean, i'd like to hear it. Also i dont see any controversis on the concept of consistency due to godel incompleteness theorem, id like you to elaborate on that as well. Finally, the photon universe i talked about essentially was meant to have an initial cause "a photon exists" and that photon's path in the universe would be decided by the laws of physics. I dont see why it doesnt have a chain of causality in there nor why should it matter to the consistency of the system.
victor duarte You misunderstood. Yes, a possible world is logically consistent. But the controversies are related to completeness, not consistency. It is possible that the existence of god or not is umprovabel through direct implication. I was trying to say is that because god’s existence is not axiomatic or unprovable does not mean he does not exist The worlds you proposed don’t imply a non-existence of god, unless you can prove it, your point is mute. Related to the single photon argument, the impossibility of such a system is not my argument. On this topic though, I am refering to the existence of such an universe existing not having cause, I don’t think that is a possible universe, although it might be as I am not well versed in modern physics, but it seems illogical to assume a single photon existing eternally without change or origin. Also, causation seems to be a necessity for any reality that has change. In this sense, I mean logical necessity that one thing leads to another.
Ah, the ontological. Allow me to retort: "1) Maximally great beings are things that exist necessarily. (Definition) 2) Therefore, maximally great beings exist. 3) God is a maximally great being. (definition) 4) Therefore, God exists." 1) Anything that exists is subject to eventual decay. 2) Something that decays can no longer be maximally great. 3) The only way to avoid decaying is to not exist. 4) Something that does not decay would be more maximally great than something that does decay. 5) Therefore, God cannot exist, lest it be subject to decay. Eat it, ontologicalists.
I know you typed out this illogic 2 years ago in your ignorance, but I just wanted to check in to make sure you actually know better now. The second group of premises speaking of decay is inherently logically absurd and contradictory. So you actually sabotaged your own "analogy." In the first argument you argued that that which is "Maximally Great" is something that has necessary existence (at least that seems to be what you were saying). In the second argument you just ignored this, creating for yourself a contradiction from the outset while just behaving AS IF there was no direct logical contradiction from the beginning, and saying all of a sudden that "anything that exists is subject to eventual decay." That's a logical contradiction already. So what do you actually believe? It comes across like you are suffering from logical schizophrenia. If you put forth the first argument to make fun of it or even if you are serious, then you cannot use a non-analogous "analogy" as some sort of counter. Isn't that common sense? Then you go on to say "Something that decays can no longer be maximally great." But isn't that already internally logically incoherent? If you say that it can decay, then you are at the same time via logical force saying that it "NEVER was Maximally Great in the first place." Is this not so? You self-sabotaged. Atheists are infamous for being terrible at logic.
+TruthUnadulterated Illogic. Yeah. From a guy so desperate to convince himself he knows more than fuck all that he has to use Truth in his name like the Cowardly Lion getting a medal of valor from the wizard of Oz. "The second group of premises speaking of decay is inherently logically absurd and contradictory." Demonstrate this. All of observable reality points to things decaying. You can't just *say* "Nuh-uh muh magic-man-belong-sky is special". Because, fucktard, *THAT* is a bit of _illogic_ called special pleading. Congratulations failing before you even started. Or to put it your own way, sabotaging your own argument, which is not the same as fake-quote analogy close-fake-quote. IT WASN'T AN ANALOGY YOU FUCKING LACKWIT. This is the best you can come up with to "prove me wrong". Take that to heart, fucktard. Understand that you don't even know what the words you're spewing actually mean and you think you know more than your betters. Learn from this. I know you won't, because you're fucking retarded, but I can always hope.
Hey bitch? Did you miss the part where you OPEN YOUR ARGUMENT with a fallacy, invalidating the entire fucking thing? I'm *STILL* waiting for you to demonstrate that there is such a thing that does not and will never decay ever. Stop posting fifty paragraphs of bullshit and just show me one thing that will never decay. Then we can talk, bitch.
+EdwardHowton Lol, bitter illogical atheist stereotype. What are you not understanding? Why are you asking me this Red Herring/Straw Man about naming one thing that will never decay? That is NOT the issue! Man, you are *_terrible_* at logical thinking. The issue is WHY WOULD YOU CALL SOMETHING THAT CAN DECAY SOMETHING ONCE "MAXIMALLY GREAT" *IN THE FIRST PLACE?* Are you really that slow? Because you went out of your way to use a term that already entails certain things that CONTRADICT your premise intrinsically, it means that either (a) you did not know what such a term as "maximally great" conveyed, or (b) you did know but didn't care and proceeded to set up a premise reducible to a reductio in your pride, or (c) you understood this fact after I spoke with you but in your pride you simply chose to *BEHAVE AS IF* the issue is with what I had said despite the conspicuous illogic seen in your second-paragraph argument. Lord have mercy, you are such an embarrassing stereotype.
+EdwardHowton All right liar. You presented no Straw Man, huh? So you say, "YOU said I was making a baseless assumption that everything decays." Ok liar. Here's your chance to point out where *I said you were making a baseless assumption that everything decays.* Point out where I said this. I will be looking for quotation marks in your response Straw Manning liar. You will do this if you are honest with nothing to hide. When you say that I dodge, all I see from you is self-projection. Stop condemning yourself, liar.
You have to remember that IP holds to a worldview of monistic idealism. Thus he denies the existence of an external reality altogether to get around the analytical/synthetic problem.
"Too dumb or too dishonest" - My bet is on dishonest. I think these people become expert philosophers in order to construct these arguments in the most obscure way.
I really don’t think theyre being intentionally dishonest, they just have presuppositions that blind them to errors in their logic. I don’t think there is bad intentions behind it, they just can’t see what they’re missing.
@@Iamwrongbut I think they became dishonest, and very intentionally so, the moment they declared faith to be a virtue and demonized doubt. This is the original sin of religion, everything else naturally follows from that.
This video shows the proper philosophical way of refuting the modal argument. I will favourite it! My two cents for refuting Alvin Plantinga's "Modal Ontological Argument": Refutation of A. Plantinga's (Modal) New Ontological Argument - It bears repeating
I love how none of the examples of necessarily existent things actually exist. Numbers and shape definitions are concepts we've developed to streamline our understanding of reality. They exist in our minds only.
That's a fairly weak assumption to rely on if that's the only objection to the Ontological Argument. (Thankfully, there are much stronger flaws with the OA that don't assume that mathematical realism is wrong.)
What he was saying was that the number 2 doesn't exist. Can you go pick up a 2? It is a concept/Idea, therefore it only exists where something made them up. Since there are possible worlds where there is nothing to make them they don't exist there. They are not "Necessary" by his definition.
Why are you asking if you can pick up a 2? That's not a good test for existence. You can't pick up love or fear or redness or liberalism or hatred, as these aren't tangible objects with physical mass or shape, but they still exist. Then you say 2 is a concept, ok fine. But it doesn't follow that it only exists where something/someone made it up, it exists (as a concept) as long as someone in some possible world could make it up: and that IS true in all possible worlds. So numbers, on this conception, are necessary beings.
No, I meant that since it isn't tangible it is directly linked to our existence because it is a concept. Concepts CANNOT exist on their own... they only exist where there is something to invent and use them. Therefore it follows that there is a possible world (indeed many) in which numbers don't exist and 2 isn't "Necessary" by his definition. The idea that ideas exist on their own is pretty out there. Yes anywhere where where something thinks they could conceptualize 2, but it only exists where there is a conceptualize-er
James pratt I think I get where the point is though and I'm sure you do too. Even if nobody was there to say it or come up with it, if 2 things exist then they are 2 things. That is, if something exists then there is an amount of it. we dont have to give it a numerical definition so it could be called anything but if I see a water bottle i dont need to say there's only one, the water bottle exists and existence implies. I get this argument a lot and I always hear 2 is a concept that only exists if thought of but that's stupid right? Yes the vocalization or thought of a number can only exist if we think of it but who here really doesn't understand that things have amounts? Concept is the wrong word as it implies thought or action but what I'm trying to say is that when the first atom blinked into existence it was an atom, 1 atom, I know you'll jump on me saying "see you had to use a number to describe it" but I'm sure we're all grown up to understand what I mean. Pardon me if i rambled but this is tough and im fuckin dumb.
That’s one hell of an imagination. You are absolutely correct. Debates gives deluded people like Craig, Hovind, Ham, Comfort, and Bruggencate credibility they shouldn’t have and don’t deserve. It allows them to spread their warped ideas to unfortunate people who may accept these ideas without seeking the facts for themselves.
I define the "existing unicorn" as being an unicorn which, by definition, exists. Think about the existing unicorn. Does it exist? If you answered "no" or "I don't know", then you weren't thinking about the existing unicorn, but some other unicorn instead. The existing unicorn exists by definition.
The funny thing is, "existence of X" is not even a property of X itself. Rather, existence of X within a set Y is a property of Y. And if the existence quantifier is unbounded then we have to go meta and talk about a property of entire universes, namely containing X within them. In any case, this is yet another purely linguistic confusion that people who actually know anything about logic should instantly recognize as such.
Of the entire intellectual discourse on UA-cam I found that you come out on top! Your videos are unchallenged in clarity and quality, when it comes to philosophy. This is, as far as I'm concerned, THE most interesting channel on here! Keep it up, will ya?
Outstanding, X! "Until Christians learn to defend their beliefs through _evidence_ rather than _rhetoric_..." Exactly! Which is why I refuse to piddle around with the Presup or any other "philosophical" or "logical" defense of their faith and stick solely to biblical apologetics. _That's_ where they go for their "evidence" and its abundantly easy to show them they have no recourse there, either.
Unfortunately the mind numb indoctrinated allow their willful ignorance to kick in and completely disregard this entire argument, passing it off as satan trying to trick them. Hope to see some of your work soon!
Of course, according to Sye 10, he is forbidden to enter into discussion about his book with infidels. A similar trick is pulled by Quranic scholars who have to be qualified to offer any interpretation or commentary. Quite by chance this means that they don't need to deal with inconvenient questions from the godless - I mean those who know God exists but suppress that knowledge in order to fit in a little extra sinning. One is minded of Dr Johnson's comment that one may criticise a carpenter who makes you a bad table even though you cannot make one yourself; it is not your trade to make tables. Evidence? Wo needs evidence when they KNOW the truth?
Winning a debate, using half truths and lies does not equal a fact, even if you are unaware that you are using half truths and lies. You say you want evidence? Here is the evidence you need to know God exists. Look at the quality of the design of your own body. Your brain is a powerful computer, which can hold hundreds of terabytes of information. Accidental? Your eyes see in colors of many mega pixels, out focus and automatically adjust for light, accidental? You can smell, which means you can detect mere molecules floating in the air ( go ahead make a machine that can do that.) accidental, right? You are completely self replicating, that is a degree of complexity we have not been able to do, but you say it is what...accidental. You say these Christians need to defend their beliefs through evidence, I say you are ignoring all the evidence as it is, why would more evidence sway you? Now let's look at what you are swayed by. You say you have evolution, I say if you have evolution then God did it, I believe that is what the original Hebrew in the Bible indicates, by the way so did Saint Augustine, when he translated the book of Genesis about 400 AD. You cannot add information through natural selection, all mutations we have ever seen are a loss of information, all mutations are harmful. We have never seen macro-evolution, nor is it reflected in the fossil record, yet you assume that micro-evolution = evolution, thought all you are seeing is existing genes being expressed, variation in the species as in the color of a moth. The only evidence that you will accept, are the facts that agree with your theories, do you examine your facts, your sources? No not when it agrees with what you want to think. While I happen to believe an intelligence from outside of space time created the space time and matter we occupy, I have to say, no one knows, if that is the case or NOT. I will also say there are better alternatives to natural selection if God does not exist, reverse entropy and punctuated equilibrium are two prime examples, which actually do fit the observable evidence. The observable evidence does not fit natural selection. That is a real problem you have, and seem completely unaware of it. I am assuming you believe in natural selection and so therefore when you stand up with your "facts" and evidence, that you have no clue there are better ideas out there. The scientific community is so on the hook with the natural selection they do not feel they can bring out better theories, so you do not know there are better ideas that do support Atheism, but you don't know what they are, I am guessing. Natural selection should be a theory in trouble, but because of the on going debate, they can not examine it correctly, it does not fit the observable science.
This happened to me in a conversation. The dude was basically trying to say that his God exists because it needs to based on how he defined it and he wouldn't admit that's what he was doing.
ACX, be prepared for IP to come and comment on this video to try and tell you either "your assuming this/that" or that you are somehow "strawmanning" his argument. He uses these excuses all the time. I let everyone know (including him) on the thread of TheMessianicManic's video "Why There's No Proof For God" which was a response to IP's video "Why There Is No Proof For God." Maybe he will make a video response, just be prepared. I'm assuming you saw his videos responding to the objections to the MOA to right?
Okay, thanks. IP will not admit to anything though and will pull things out of his ass if he has too, or go on a spree of ROFL, LOL, or WTF. Once again, just be prepared for the shit storm that will happen down in the comments later today with IP and his theistic friends.
In what might be a calm, dispassionate rebuttal of the ontological argument, inspiring confidence in the maturity and depth of understanding of the issues by the speaker, I find my attention instead distracted by the emotional phrases. Alvin Plantinga might tell a student to his face that he is wrong, but he avoids derogation of the student. Wouldn't any of us appreciate that in a teacher? Derogatory epithets raise questions about the intentions and presuppositions of the speaker, even implying a certain desperation to be found and supported as correct. This presentation has some valid academic proposals deserving consideration, but it is tainted with undue emotion. Why? Live long and prosper.
+Tim Trewyn You seem to be under the naive impression that this is some kind of academic discussion. It's not. Inspiring Philosophy is a bullshit artist. Get over it. I have no patience for blathering buffoons who pretend to be experts in things they obviously don't understand.
Life of Brian *If you had stepped back and controlled your impulse to heap scorn at people with whom you disagree* Oh, you mean like this very comment you wrote, which just so happens to be dripping with scorn and contention, but not a single coherent counter-point to speak of? If only we could all aspire to the philosophical heavyweight of people yourself.
+Life of Brian Oh look, yet more piss and vinegar. Since you won't dispute a single point of the actual video, I'm just going to assume you agree with the whole thing and have nothing of substance to offer in rebuttal. Thanks for playing.
AntiCitizenX, I really love your approach to things. Very detailed, explanatory, and clean. Thank you for your videos and I hope you keep them coming. :)
Meh. Virtually nobody actually reads his blog, so he might as well have not even written it. Maybe if enough people think it will be entertaining to watch.
AntiCitizenX Is there anything to be gained from reading his response? I do like discussion, that is, hearing both sides of the debate, but I have this gut feeling the response is so asinine that it doesn't even work as to underline his point, as it's questionable whether there even is one. Or whether the MOA is even an argument at all. I think Carneades.org has done a good job of underlining all the problems of it.
I think it would great if ACX responded towards IP's blog post. Nobody that I know has actually responded back to IP on his blog post, in which IP claims victory then. IP seemed to think ACX strawmanned his points and was pointing out how internet atheists (ACX) are so "immature." Or that this video was somehow "propaganda." *facepalm* This is why IP and other theists piss me off so much.
Some observations: 1) IP never links to my video. He doesn't even so much as give the title. 2) IP never quotes me directly. He just responds to generic timestamps without any attempt to provide context. 3) IP appeals to authority and name drops constantly. 4) IP pretends that he never said things he actually said on record. 5) IP misunderstands basic philosophical principles and terminology ("external world" for one), while constantly complaining that I don't understand philosophy. 6) IP quote mines. A lot. He particularly likes to take my executive summary of his position, treat it like a direct quote, and respond with "I never said that!" 7) IP employs the Road-Runner tactic on several occasions. 8) IP rejects pragmatic measures of epistemology. 9) IP cites references that he apparently has not even read (Quine, for one). Any other points?
11:04 *"A square cannot exist with only three sides because that would be logically incoherent in any possible world."* ...except in a world where a 'square' was defined as 'a three sided polygon'. ;o)
Mostly because this argument is not honest. You can tell by the way it is worded that someone went through deliberate effort to bury a bad argument in pseudo-intellectual jargon. It makes perfect sense if your goal is to impress dumb people with fancy rhetoric, but no sense at all as a sincere intellectual endeavor. That kind of stuff just really grates on me.
+AntiCitizenX I've been thinking for a while that atheist might be better on inventing good arguments for god or gods. To test this hypothesis, I'll ask you: "If a theist would give 1 000 000 € to charity if you can produce a better argument for a god or gods, what would you say? On minor point, my only problem with your video is that in sets of All Possible Worlds & All Impossible Worlds, both sets had same cells (W1, W2 etc.)
Little proof I want to share to people still trying to prove God's existence or lack thereof. (probably not perfect in terms of logic but hopefully the message is still clear) 1. Being natural and being supernatural are a subset of existence. (definition) 2: To be natural, an entity or event must exist or happen in a way that is empirical, undeniable and occurs without impossible interference or intervention. (definition) 3: To be supernatural, an entity must exist in a superior state above natural entities, or an event must happen, such that neither case can be empirically proven to exist or explained using natural laws. (definition) 4: Natural entities/events cannot also be supernatural entities/events and vice versa. (Law of Contradiction) 5: A miracle is an event that cannot be empirically proven or explained. (definition) 6: Therefore, miracles are supernatural events. (3 & 5) 7: God is an entity that can perform miracles. (definition) 8: Therefore, God is a supernatural entity. (6 & 7) 9: Therefore, God cannot be empirically proven to exist. (3 & 8) 10: An apologist is a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. (definition) 11: Apologists typically use the same arguments multiple times in different mediums to persuade their audience. (definition) 12: Insanity is doing the same thing numerous times and expecting different results. (definition) 13: Therefore, that kind of apologetic argumentation is insanity. (11 & 12) 14: Therefore, it is insane to continue to try to prove God's existence using any method known to humanity. (9 & 13)
While St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) believed that God's existence is self-evident, he rejected the idea that it can be deduced from claims about the concept of God. Aquinas argued, plausibly enough, that "not everyone who hears this word 'God' understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body." The idea here is that, since different people have different concepts of God, this argument works, if at all, only to convince those who define the notion of God in the same way. The problem with this criticism is that the ontological argument can be restated without defining God. To see this, simply delete premise 1 and replace each instance of "God" with "A being than which none greater can be conceived." The conclusion, then, will be that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists - and it is, of course, quite natural to name this being God. Nevertheless, Aquinas had a second problem with the ontological argument. On Aquinas's view, even if we assume that everyone shares the same concept of God as a being than which none greater can be imagined, "it does not therefore follow that he understands what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally." One natural interpretation of this somewhat ambiguous passage is that Aquinas is rejecting premise 2 of Anselm's argument on the ground that, while we can rehearse the words "a being than which none greater can be imagined" in our minds, we have no idea of what this sequence of words really means. On this view, God is unlike any other reality known to us; while we can easily understand concepts of finite things, the concept of an infinitely great being dwarfs finite human understanding. We can, of course, try to associate the phrase "a being than which none greater can be imagined" with more familiar finite concepts, but these finite concepts are so far from being an adequate description of God, that it is fair to say they don't help us to get a detailed idea of God. Nevertheless, the success of the argument doesn't depend on our having a complete understanding of the concept of a being than which none greater can be conceived. Consider, for example, that, while we don't have a complete understanding (whatever this means) of the concept of a natural number than which none larger can be imagined, we understand it well enough to see that there does not exist such a number. No more complete understanding of the concept of a maximally great being than this is required, on Anselm's view, to successfully make the argument. If the concept is coherent, then even a minimal understanding of the concept is sufficient to make the argument.
I dont know if this is gonna be read, but i have to say it. While i do agree that the argument is wrong, i think your explanation of why it is wrong is not correct. I try to picture the argument as if you had a relation on all of the predicatives and argued the relation of goodness ( that may be left undefined for now ) you just need the property of necessity to be in there. Given that, you define god(x) as a relation which is true iff x has all of the good properties (one of them being necessity as i previously stated ). All that ive done so far is given definitions. Now, the only premisse of the argument is that such an entity x s.t. god(x) is possible ( exists in a logically consistent universe ). From that premise, it is obvious that the being truly is necessary ( by its own definition: it is sorta like defining a unicorn as a horned horse that exists ). Thats why i reject such a premisse. I would like to make a counter argument on the following form: 1) there is an entity x s.t. god(x) in a possible world 2) if that is right, then, by definition, it would be a necessary being 3) i can, however, conceive of a consistent world were god doesnt exist ( a world with no humans may do so ). So, god cant be necessary 4) paradox To me, this argument is a proof that this definition of god as a maximally great being (including necessity) is just another proof that such a god is inconsistent with logic, generating a paradox. I think people have got it on the wrong way. Hope you see this
So, I only watched 2 minutes of this and well, basically... you proved IP's point. You obviously have no understanding of philosophy (or Atheism for that matter) I suggest you read David Hume and Michael Ruse (both very great Atheist thinkers) and then watch ALL of the IP videos on ontology. (I mean, really... 20 minutes on 1/5 of the explanation? Not great research there)
So, I only read the first line of your comment, and well, basically, you made zero effort to refute anything but just asserted flat-out that I'm wrong and you're right. I suggest you actually pay attention to the argument and learn some basic logic. I mean, seriously. Terrible response there.
AntiCitizenX Excellent video. I happen to be working on a similar video about the classic arguments for god, but I am attempting to explain these refutations on a junior-high-school level. So, I am attempting to cut through a lot of the silliness that is hidden in the jargon that apologists use. I've finished the material describing (without the jargon) the analytic-synthetic distinction (I am calling them "truth by definition" vs. "truth by observation".) However, I've been struggling a little bit how to show the modal ontological argument is nothing more than trying to define god into existence without going into verbiage that would be over the head of a 7th grader. So, anyway, I was wondering if it would be okay with you if I use excerpts of your material in my video.
I'd love to see your result. I specifically made this one a little heavy on the technical side, but if you can dumb it down for a younger audience that would be fantastic. I hope I've at least given you some more ammunition to work with.
AntiCitizenX I think I can do it, but it might take a while. Or, I might break it up into playlist. The trouble with these apologists is that they love throwing something faintly plausible sounding that takes ten times as long to refute -- and then they just move on to the next stupidity in their playbook I'll let you know when I have something online. My channel is a new one and we've only just started (my tween daughter and I are doing it together). She's a lifelong atheist and wanted to do something once she saw how her friends were being indoctrinated by their families (her best friend is from a Mormon family). So, this channel is what we came up with. We're doing satire Bible studies, but also want to put up some serious material.
AntiCitizenX I found it pretty comprehensive, and I haven't taken any formal philosophy or logic courses. I did have to look up a few terms, but that was it. Even if it was too technical for some, the fact that you kept reinforcing the same fundamental flaw within the first premise alone made it very blatantly obvious on what you were arguing.
I am not a very smart guy but this was exactly what I was thinking when I heard this argument, defining god into existence by sneaking the conclusion into the definition in the first premise. I doubted myself because they kept going back to since I'm not contradicting myself it has to be true..... The whole of christian apologetics seems to be sneaking in premises, or using the imperfections in language to define god into existence. it's really nice to know that I wasn't misunderstanding the argument. Take my very rare like.
The funniest part of the whole damn thing is that, even if we accept the entire argument on its face, we get no closer to IP's conception of a Berkeleyan idealist Christian god. We cannot derive that particular is from the ought. (Unrelated, but something I also found amusing was, in the comments of the original, IP saying he was converted after reading C.S. Lewis.)
3 minutes in, the video still makes no sense. No, when we talk about god we very much are NOT "inevitably talking about ...omnipotence, omniscience...". Literally the textbook stawman. Also, I find it funny that some athiests claim no god exists but can somehow know exactly the properties of that non-existent god. If you are going to do that at the very least call yourself anti-christian or something. This reminds me. If you don't know whether something exist or not, the default position is "i don't know", not "it doesn't exist", so a logical athiest can only exist if there is proof god cannot exist. (remember them ontological arguments you hate so much? Also proof things cannot exist very much exist. A lot of computer science is built upon such proofs)
well that is the definition Christians like to use so its pretty relevant that it is logically incoherent and in several different ways too also I dont think you understand what an atheist is usually defined as it just means you lack belief in God I would say Im an agnostic atheist when it comes to the vague claim that a God exists but if they define it the way abrahamic religions do Id say Im a gnostic atheist or maybe a theological non-cognivist
Neither the video nor the comments actually address Anselm's Ontological argument or Godel's Ontological argument which uses a modal logic. I will state Anselm's argument and Godel's argument using a modal logic. For a modal logic we need to add the connectives "necessary that" and "possibly that" in addition to the connectives in a predicate logic.
Let □ represent "necessary that" and ◇ represent "possibly that". Using a predicate logic we can easily prove the "substitution rule" which states: p V q q --> r -------- theterfore, p V r. Using a truth table(which can be used in a predicate logic) you can show that (~p --> q) V (p V q) is a tautology. I.E; the two statements are equivalent. Call this tautology A: (~p --> q) (p V q). Proof: (1) p V q Given (2) q --> r Given (3) ~p --> q A (1) (4) ~p --> r Chain Rule (3) and (2) (5) p V r A (4) QED. Becker's Postulates: (1) □p --> □□p (2) ◇p --> □◇p Axiom 1: ◇p Axiom 2: p --> □p modal modus ponens: □(p --> q) --> (□p --> □q) modal modus tollens: (p --> q) --> (□~q --> □~p) (*) ~□p --> ◇~p (**) ◇p --> ~□~p necessitation postulate: □p Law of excluded middle: □p V ◇~p Anselm's proof using a modal logic: To prove : □g (1) g --> □g Axiom 2 (2) ◇~g --> □◇~g Becker's postulate 2 (3) □g V ◇~g Law of excluded middle (4) □g V □◇~g Substitution rule (2,3) (5) ~□g --> ~g law of contrapositive (1) (6) ◇~g --> ~g by * (5) (7) □(◇~g --> ~g) necessitation postulate (6) (8) □◇~g --> □~g modal modus ponens (7) (9) □g V □~g substitution (4,8) (10) ◇g --> ~□~g by ** (11) ◇g Axiom 1 (12) ~□~g modus ponens (10,11) (13) □g Law of detachment (9,12) The argument is clearly a valid argument, whether it's a sound valid argument I leave to others to debate on the Axioms above. Godel's Ontological Argument is worth looking in to. An attempt at Godel's ontological proof. Pos(F) states property F is positive Axiom 1 : Pos(F) --> □Pos(F) Axiom 2: Pos(F) --> ~Pos(~F) It's clear that Axiom 2 states if F is a positive property, then it's negation is not positive. Axiom 3: Pos(F) --> [(F --> H) --> Pos(H)] Axiom 3 just states that positive properties imply other positive properties. def: A property F is said to be consistent if ◇(∃x)Fx is true and if property F is inconsistent then F --> ~F. Theorem 1: Pos(F) --> ◇(∃x)Fx Proof: Let Pos(F) be true and suppose F is inconsistent, then F --> ~F and by Axiom 3 Pos(F) --> [(F --> ~F) --> Pos(~F)] --> Pos(~F) is true --> ~Pos(~F) is false which contradicts Axiom 2. Therefore, the assumption is false and the assertion Pos(F) --> ◇(∃x)Fx is true. Here we define what it means to be Godlike. Let Gx stand for x is Godlike. def 1: Gx = df(F)[□Fx Pos(F)] is a tautology. I.E; The two statements are equivalent. This states that every essential property of a godlike individual x is a positive property and every positive property of x is an essential property. Note: This definition does not imply that a godlike individual has all positive properties. It states that a godlike individual has those positive properties which are essential properties. F ess x reads "F is an essence of x." Next we define what it means for a property F to be a essence of an individual x. def 2: F ess x = df(H)[□Hx (F --> H)] is a tautology. Next we define what it means for an individual x to exist necessarily. Let NE(x) read "x necessarily exists". def 3: NE(x) = df(F)[F ess x --> □(∃y)Fy]. Axiom 4: Pos(G). Axiom 5: Pos(NE). Corollary 1 : ◇(∃x)Gx Proof: By Axiom 4 Pos(G) and by Theorem 1 Pos(G) --> ◇(∃x)Gx QED. Theorem 2: Gx --> G Ess x. Proof: Assume Gx is true and let □Hx. To show: □y(Gy --> Hy) By (def 1 and Axiom 1) □Hx --> Pos(H) --> □Pos(H). Referring to the Note above by def 1 we have: □[Pos(H) --> (y)(Gy --> Hy)] and by modul modus ponens □Pos(H) --> □(y)(Gy --> Hy). Now let Gx be true and G --> H. Show □H. By (Axiom 4) Pos(G) and by (Axiom 3) and (def 1) we have : Pos(G) --> [G --> H) --> Pos(H)] --> □H. Therefore Gx --> G Ess x. Prove: □(∃x)Gx. Prior to proving the above statement we need two theorems in modal logic. Theorem A* : □(p --> q) --> [◇p --> ◇q]. Theorem A** : ◇□p --> □p. Proof of □(∃x)Gx. If Gx where true, then by (def 1) □Pos(G) and by (Axiom 4) Pos(NE) --> NE(x) is true and by (Theorem 2) G ess x is true --> [(∃x)Gx --> □(∃x)Gx]. By necessitation axiom above □[(∃y)Fy --> □(∃y)Fy] and Theorem A* --> ◇(∃x)Gx --> ◇□(∃x)Gx and by Corollary 1 ◇(∃x)Gx which by A** --> □(∃x)Gx. QED Using an ordinary MacBook computer, Godel's proof was shown to be correct, at least on a mathematical level, using a higher modal logic. I find it amazing that Godel's argument can be proven automatically in a few seconds or even less on a standard notebook. The equations all add up. If there are other things that use similar logic it may be possible to develop computer systems to check each single step of a proof to make certain they are correct.
YES! This is the problem with virtually all of the presuppositional apologetic fans I deal with. I have to try to explain this to them. And I have no education or training in logic or philosophy. Common sense shows this is nonsense! Congrats to Inspiring Philosophy (who is incredibly difficult to argue with because of the sheer blahblahblablah in his comments and stalwart dishonesty/refusal to admit error) for getting AntiCitizenX to swear! I love this video so much! ;_;
It's also possible Emma Watson is my GF in one of these possible worlds, but I don't base my life around that premise. This argument was originally meant to justify theism (and not prove God), but considering my previous point, I don't think it does even that.
I like in IP's response to you he writes - "...he bases his objection on this presupposition, that analytical claims have no bearing on claims about the external world. The obvious problem is the analytical/synthetic distinction is claimed to speak about what is true about the real world and must therefore be a synthetic proposition...Where is the synthetic evidence of this analytic/synthetic distinction? Well, he doesn’t have any. It is obvious his distinction is analytical, so by his own logic it has no bearing on the real world." It seems the distinction is a claim about the way language relates to the world and not the actual world itself, so is not synthetically proposed, but that would seem to concede more than enough to the skeptical argument. I think there's more to the story though, Consider the term motionless, defined as stationary with respect to other objects with motion. Now we can define the earth as being stationary with respect to other moving objects because we see the moon and sun moving around us. The statement the earth is motionless can be proposed analytically and would thus be true and must be true of the actual world, but to analyze the claim synthetically we find it is actually false. This does appear to me to be the empirical evidence that would support the distinction. But that's not the only example, most of the failures of our species to understand how things work is the failure of logic in this regard and the success of evidence in the same. It appears the claim - analytic propositions speak of the actual world not just the terms housed within them - if true would lead to the very contradiction in the earth example above, X exists by analysis but X does not exist by synthesis. If X's exists by logic, but empirical evidence shows X does not exist, but we still consider X to exist in the actual world by way of the initial claim, then said claim is unfalsifiable and does not speak of the actual world, unless of course you consider an unfalsifiable proposition to speak of the actual world, which IP does.
"A maximally great being is logically impossible" If I define a being as perfect in every way, including unbeatable in arm wrestling, defining another being as just as perfect but able to beat my being in arm wrestling means that that being contains a logical contradiction and is therefore not possible. Therefore, a being that is greater than a maximally great being is impossible, which should mean that "maximally great" does not contain the mentioned contradiction.
That's just the problem, though: it _is_ possible for you to imagine a being which is _to you_ "maximally great". It is then possible for me, having heard your definition, to imagine a different being with the ability to beat yours in an arm wrestling bout - because infinity has no ceiling. It's like the infinite hotel paradox: Imagine a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms - an infinite amount of _occupied_ rooms. Is it possible for you to book a room? Sure - by moving the occupant of room 1 to room 2, the occupant of room 2 to room 3, the occupant of room 3 to room 4 etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. So there is no contradiction in an infinitely strong being losing a fight to a being which is infinitely stronger. "Infinity plus one", if you will. This is because infinity is already a paradox to begin with.
I think words cause the problems here actually. They tend to do so regarding infinities. It is like the god who cannot create a stone so heavy that he can´t lift it. When you resort to actual numbers instead of convuluted wording, all problems go away. (Yes I dispute that disproof of omnipotence defined as the ability to do any logical possible actions.) And yes, if instead of defining the being as unbeatable in armwrestling or able to beat anyone else in armwrestling, which creates a bunch of logical paradoxes, you measure the armwrestling ability in numbers, the being would have infinite armwrestling skill. You can then define your being as having twice as much skill as mine have, which is more perfect, so you are right. There are some instances where maximality converges to a finite number however. If perfection sometimes is the middleground between two extremes, it becomes logically possible. I have some trouble finding examples, but looks is one thing at least. According to any one person, there is a definable "maximal perfection". For example, a woman might find a muscular guy more attractive than a non muscular guy, but if he has biceps that are bigger than mount everest, it is not particularly attractive anymore.
All his talk about squared circles being impossible refuted his proof of the Christian God, who is ever-wrathful and omnibenevolent, ever-merciful and all-just, all loving yet it sends you to hell forever for not loving it in return.
Damn you - I'm working on a video about the ontological argument and you pre-empt me with a more thorough debunking. Also, what is it with apologists like IP who can't even state the argument in its actual form? Plantinga's presentation of it hides the question begging more skilfully (IMO).
Every time I hear someone using this argument, they are Christians. When I ask them if they are Christians & they answer in the affirmative I then say "why are you wasting time with this argument? Just present evidence for the Bible story of Christ's resurrection". So far, they have not presented any evidence for the Bible story of Christ's resurrection... they just try to use the Bible story as the evidence for the story.
From your post, we can see how far in you got before posting. Me, about the same. But isn't this what teaching about science should be? Question everything, the method, the premise, the analysis, the selection process etc. etc. Perhaps it was my (excellent) undergraduate training. But this is the philosophy of science.
"If the crew from 'Sliders' ould travel to a parallel Earth where God exists, then God must exist in ALL parallel Earths!" That's the argument. Seriously. That's it.
You lost at non sequitur. The nature of God is defined as omnipresent or existing everywhere. i.e. all possible worlds. The only part of OA you can dispute is premise #1 Can God exist? The argument is logically sound from this point on. as for possible worlds, consider the impact this concept has on the multiverse hypothesis where the thinking is that anything that can happen will happen. OA changes the question from does God exist to Can God exist.
*The nature of God is defined as omnipresent or existing everywhere. i.e. all possible worlds.* I don't think you understand what a possible world is. *The only part of OA you can dispute is premise #1 Can God exist? The argument is logically sound from this point on.* 1) I own a home in California 2) California is a state in America 3) Therefore, I own a home in EVERY state in America. If you can't spot the flaw in this argument, then you don't understand the MOA. *as for possible worlds, consider the impact this concept has on the multiverse hypothesis* That's not how logically possible worlds work.
AntiCitizenX That's exactly the argument that failed. To accurately equate the argument would have to be more like this 1. I am the owner of all homes in America 2. There are homes in California 3. California is in America 4. I own all homes in California Your argument presents yourself with finite ownership. Maximally Great is not finite. The home ownership analogy is backwards. I understand logically possible. As OA goes, these worlds are not actual but merely possible. All possible worlds have a commonality, namely being possible. It's not really that difficult. Ironically, the multiverse hypothesis suggests that all possible worlds (or universes) are in fact actual. This gives even more bite to the OA. The entire argument is decided by a single premise, whether or not God is possible. If a maximally great being, or God, is possible then God exists by necessity of logic in this actual world. The argument cannot address the soundness of the starting premise, but if true, the argument is sound.
*1. I am the owner of all homes in America* Not only does this statement beg the question, it is also not stated as a formal premise in the MOA. *Your argument presents yourself with finite ownership.* So does the MOA. *All possible worlds have a commonality, namely being possible.* You then went on to claim that omnipresence implies existence in all of those worlds, which only confuses the meaning of those terms. *Ironically, the multiverse hypothesis suggests that all possible worlds (or universes) are in fact actual.* It does nothing of the sort. Again, you don't know what a "possible world" is, so let me explain: A possible world is a SELF CONSISTENT DESCRIPTION of some state of affairs. I can imagine a possible world where the multiverse contains nothing like our current universe. *The argument cannot address the soundness of the starting premise, but if true, the argument is sound.* What part of "some does not imply all" do you not understand? I am well-aware of what all that maximally-great nonsense means. But you still have to state it as a formal premise in order to call the argument "sound," genius.
+AntiCitizenX The OA begins with 1. A maximally great being exists. This premise is often rephrased "IF" a maximally great being exists. There is no way you can say a premise of "i own a home in California" can be of any use in understanding the OA. Apples to oranges. To understand the argument you have to understand the concept of maximally great. Such a being would be as great as can be imagined and have to the greatest extent imaginable all the attributes of greatness. The greatest possible being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds because to not do so would leave room for a greater being that does. A maximally great being DOES necessarily exist in ALL possible worlds. This is the Christian concept of God. The uncaused cause which is demanded by logic. The eternally existent creator of all that is. The reason that existence is rather than nothing. Not finite. A possible world is a concept. A conceptual world, or universe, that is possible. Worlds that are self-contradicting are not possible. If a maximally great being exists, the originating premise, then a world in which this being does not exist is NOT possible. You can imagine it but so what? Contradictory worlds aren't on the list. I have no idea what you're going on about, it's not so difficult. The multiverse hypothesis appeals to plenitude thinking where everything that can possibly happen will happen. This hypothesis is used to defend highly improbable events in evolution and cosmology and says that these possible universes actually exist. Not sure what you're objecting to here either. You need to drop the house in California thing, it's preventing you from understanding OA and where this video really went off the rails. Just a train wreck from there.
@jon doe... This is dealt with in the rest of the video, and in the comments already in this comment thread. It seems you missed AntiCitnzenX clarifying possible worlds for you: *A possible world is a SELF CONSISTENT DESCRIPTION of some state of affairs* MGB is an attempt to define something as extant - literally by definition. Language is not reality. Perhaps one way of putting it: Existence isn't actually a property but rather the instantiation of a thing's properties. "Greatness" is a value judgement.
Mitchell Sheppard " Ad hominem kills any arguments that follows it." That's a contradiction. If "arguments follow" it is no longer an ad hominem fallacy. That would mean you used *nothing* *but* insults and attempts at discrediting the person.
Mitchell Sheppard *I don't think that saying the use of fallacies is a problem counts as begging the question.* It is when that's literally all you have to say.
Being problematic to a logical argument is the definition of a logical fallacy. The only situation in which I'm begging the question is if ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy. It is though, so you are wrong.
You have some of the most useful, engaging, and entertaining content I have seen out of all atheist youtubers. Keep it up this stuff is great! You should make some guides to forming an argument and diagnosing and countering others arguments.
I have always felt that people who complain about rudeness have nothing specific in this video to dispute, but don't want to admit they might be wrong, either.
And I wouldn't really say I got owned 😂 I'm obviously not as smart or studied as either parties, but I've watched both videos and can easily within a moment who can be calm in their debate and who needs to act like their better than the other. I'm assuming this relates to some psychological phenomena because it seems that just about all atheists have this same problem where they like to make fun of the other debater. I'm not saying you're not allowed to, but it's just interesting. It reminds me of when a big strong guy gets into an argument with a scientist and takes his frustrations out using his physical strength. Perhaps you can tell me that the frustration comes from the other party being "so stupid it's unbearable" but I highly doubt that. Anyway, tootaloo
Pretty terrible video. It's absolutely fascinating how internet atheists tend to think they can just disprove stuff by ACTUAL philosophers this easily, that professional atheists philosophers can't.
@@roneddy He is a practicing scientist, with a PhD in philosophy. He profession is not philosophy. But, it hasn't gone unnoticed, that neither you, nor Singah NDLOVU has actually responded to the actual arguments AntiCitizenX made. All you and Singah have is nothing but ad hominem. Nicely done sirs, nicely done.
@@roneddy You do know that Plantinga himself admitted the the modal ontological argument did not provide evidence for the existence of a god, right? Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm’s argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (Plantinga 1974)
And let me add, that Plantinga's modal argument does not even provide a rational argument, because it is not rational to accept its central premise. It is fallacious.
So here is how to destroy the MOA: 1) Deny logic. 2) Reduce modal logic to "blah blah blah". 3) Act incredulous to axiom S5. 4) Deny that someone making a proof can define terms how they want. 5) Assume moral nihlism. And assume positivism and materialism the whole way. There, the argument is refuted.
I can honestly say that you are a living embodiment of everything I specifically railed against in this exact video. I truly cannot tell if your comment is just pure ignorance, or rampant dishonesty. 1) No one "denied" logic dumbass. I did, however, explain the scope logic as well as its limitations. 2) No, I reduced the ontological argument to "blah blah blah." There is a difference. And I did so for very specific reasons. Again, are you lying, or just that stupid? 3) No one denied axiom S5. It was not even mentioned in this video. It is also irrelevant to the fundamental flaws of the MOA. I highly doubt you even know what S5 is or means. 4) I specifically said "you can define your terms however you want." You lying sack of shit. 5) Morality did not even come up in this video. Again, you lying sack of shit. 6) Materialism is irrelevant to this video. Positivism has some relevance from the analytic/synthetic distinction, though that is not strictly a positivist concept, nor is it automatically "positivism" to assert it. Nor is it wrong. Thank you for proving all of my points once again. You are either too stupid or too dishonest to be treated with respect. Piss off, dipshit.
*1) No one "denied" logic dumbass. I did, however, explain the scope logic as well as its limitations.* If you think that true premises could lead to a false conclusion by the rules of logic, then yes, that is denying logic. If it isn't denying logic I don't know what is. If you don't, then what's the point of saying what you said? You spent a lot of time attacking the argument itself, so there is absolutely no reason for you to bring up what you did unless you believe the former. *2) No, I reduced the ontological argument to "blah blah blah." There is a difference. And I did so for very specific reasons. Again, are you lying, or just that stupid?* No, look at the video again. I was referencing 3:53. "1. X is possible. 2. Blah blah blah... 3. Therefore, X is so." If 2 was not meant to be pejorative you could have said something else, like "fill in the blank". If you didn't mean to be pejorative to the rest of IP's argument (modal logic), then that's fine. I'm willing to admit I misinterpreted what you said. But don't try to change your words. *3) No one denied axiom S5. It was not even mentioned in this video. It is also irrelevant to the fundamental flaws of the MOA. I highly doubt you even know what S5 is or means.* Considering that you were incredulous towards how "God is possible" could mean "God exists", and the reason why that is so is axiom S5, then yes, it is fair for me to say that you were incredulous to axiom S5. *4) I specifically said "you can define your terms however you want." You lying sack of shit.* Well then why were you spending so long mocking the argument because of the definitions used? In IP's original video the purpose of talking about the definition of God was to illustrate how God is necessary if He is possible, and not just to say "I defined God as necessary, hahaha I win", as you seemed to represent his argument. *5) Morality did not even come up in this video. Again, you lying sack of shit.* I quote from 14:10- "Greatness and betterness are not objectively quantifiable things. These are called value judgements." I am open to correction if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but don't pretend you didn't say something that you did once I call you out on it. *6) Materialism is irrelevant to this video.* From 8:52: "It does not matter how God is "defined". Mere definitions alone to not magically translate into physical presence in the real world. Any idiot can tell you this." You seem to be implying that by saying "God exists" we are saying He is physical. Again, it's okay if you admit you made a mistake, or if I misinterpreted what you said, but don't try to pretend you didn't say something once I call you out on it. *Positivism has some relevance from the analytic/synthetic distinction, though that is not strictly a positivist concept, nor is it automatically "positivism" to assert it. Nor is it wrong.* Perhaps a better word (that you use) is pragmatism. If you are going to assume pragmatism then you should have good reasons for us to accept it... I watched your vid on pragmatism and the arguments for it were pretty terrible. The best argument I remember for pragmatism as applying universally (the only way you could then apply it to theistic arguments) is that if some true proposition doesn't have an empirical test that proves it true then you don't care. If you want to correct me and bring up a better argument for pragmatism that's fine, but come on. If those are the best arguments you have for pragmatism then forgive us for criticizing you for assuming it to critique an argument for the existence of God.
Sam Butler 11) Read the full quote, where Plantinga says that it still makes it more rational to believe that God exists since it is rational to believe the premises.
Christopher Johnson "If you think that true premises could lead to a false conclusion by the rules of logic, then yes, that is denying logic." He never said anything like that. He said that you can't deduce the existence of some entity via pure logic, because existence, by definition, generates some possible empirical (ie expieriential) expectation. If you have some existent thing which is literally impossible to experience, then your thing is indistinguishable from nothing, and via Leibniz' Law identical to nothing. "Considering that you were incredulous towards how "God is possible" could mean "God exists", and the reason why that is so is axiom S5, then yes, it is fair for me to say that you were incredulous to axiom S5." That's because it hadn't been explained at that point that God is defined as a 'necessary being', whatever that means. No different than saying 'if Zeus exists in some possible world, then Zeus exists in all possible worlds'. S5 only applies to possibly necessary statements, so there's no reason to appeal to S5 until the claim is made that some statement is necessary. "You seem to be implying that by saying "God exists" we are saying He is physical." He's just saying that if he exists, then, as mentioned earlier, he generates some experiential expectation. Otherwise he's just indistinguishable from nothing.
Logical systems that have contradictions are easy to produce. It's just that such systems aren't very useful as often the contradiction can be used to construct a logically valid deduction for any claim, thus making the whole system trivial. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion.
So, to answer your "wooooah WhaT?!?!?! wHerE dA hElL diD thAT coME fROm?!?!?!" at 7:19. (1) Suppose (for discharge) that at some possible world w1, G is the case. (2) Necessarily, if G is the case, then G is necessarily the case. (Trivial ~ definition of G) (3) Hence, at w1, if G is the case, then G is necessarily the case. (4) So, at w1, G is necessarily the case. (2,3) (5) If a proposition is possibly necessarily the case, then it is actually necessarily the case. (theorem of modal logic K + B) (6) So, G is actually necessarily the case. (4,5, modus ponens) (7) Conclusion: if G is possibly the case, then G is necessarily the case (1,6) Note that (2) is not "defining G to be true". It isn't saying "G is necessarily the case, and this is true because it is true by definition". it's saying "granted that God exists, it follows that God necessarily exists". ~~That~~ is certainly trivially true because of the definition of God (more specifically, an MGB). But that's entirely separate from the act of "defining something into existence". That's like saying that [](P -> P) defines pistachios into existence, where P means "pistachios exist". Does saying "if pistachios exist, then pistachios exist" define pistachios into existence? Then neither does "if God exists, then God exists necessarily". The word "exists" both in the pistachio conditional and in the God conditional doesn't have any actual sort of ontological import by being in the antecedent. These sentences are just describing a logical consequence lol. If you're still skeptical about this, I recommend you ask just about any atheist logician who has looked into the modal ontological argument, and they will essentially confirm what I just said. Your best bet is to just deny that systems like S5 are appropriate for modal metaphysics (which, I think, is rather dubious), or say that there is no reason to think that it is possible that God exists (other than reasons for God existing in general) that isn't also a reason to think that it is possible that God does not exist (in which case, you can run a reverse MOA), i.e. there is no good symmetry breaker. But you did not do that, the video was just a really cringey misunderstanding of modal logic ~~ perhaps even just basic propositional logic.
19:03 1) It is possible I have a lot of money on my bank account. 2) If it is possible that my large bank account exists, then large bank accounts must exist on other accounts. 3) If large bank accounts exist on some accounts, then they exist on every possible account. 4) If large bank accounts can exist on every account, then they actually exist on my account. 5) therefore, I have a large account on my account. 6) my large bank account exists. 7) ...never mind, still broke, just checked.
Dear Viewer: If you believe that my critique of the MOA is flawed, then by all means, explain how. I want to know where I am mistaken so that I can correct myself in the future. Yet the overwhelming majority of negative feedback has been nothing more than a casual assertion of "you're dumb" and nothing else. It leads me to suspect that you people all subconsciously understand how stupid the MOA is, but just cannot bring yourselves to say it out loud.
I think you did a great job dude, it's okay when people say that "you're dumb". Just like me, I just asserted that God is self contradictory to the believer, then he said that I must check my IQ in psychological tests and must die first to prove it, lol
I'm afraid these people have become religious fundamentalism that can lead to extreme violence
I would just like to add that the presentation at 4:30 is flawed in that it is possible to have a valid argument in the structure of
'1. X is possible.
2. Blah blah
3. Therefore, X exists.'
as long as 2 is a synthetic proposition.
For example:
1. X is possible.
2. Y is true.
3. X is the best/only explaination for Y.
4. Therefore, X is true.
This approach is basically the scientific method.
Now, I am not claiming to be an expert at this, so if there is some mistake with how I view this issue feel free to point it out.
This is also a largely minor point considering the argument being deconstructed is only working with analytic propositions and is therefore unable to make a synthetic conclusion.
@@DaizyDPK It seems to me that Premise 1 is just redundant. You could leave it out entirely, and 2-4 would still be perfectly reasonable, don't you think?
@@AntiCitizenX I have thought about it and I would like to agree in principle, since this is just semantics about what a "best explaination" is. If being a good explaination entails being possible, then yes it's redundant, but if not then it's not.
This is beside the point however since a redundant premise doesn't invalidate an argument, does it?
Who says Christian apologetics has no practical application...
*Walks into a bank*
"Can I help you?"
"Yes, I'd like to withdraw a million dollars from my bank account."
"Um, sir, you don't even have an account with our bank."
"Is it possible that I might have an account with this bank?"
"Well, sure but you..."
"So we agree that in some alternate world, I might have an account with this bank."
"Uh, but in this world..."
"...and surely we could agree that an account with a million dollars in it would be a great thing, right?"
"Well, yes, but..."
"...and how could it be a great thing if it didn't exist."
"Wait, what?"
"So since it, by definition, must exist to be a great thing, my account with one million dollars in it does exist."
"That's ridiculous."
"Are you suggesting that an account with a million dollars in it wouldn't be a great thing?"
"No but..."
"Fantastic! Now I'd like my million dollars please."
*Gets thrown out of bank*
I do not know if that would be the way a logician would construct this argument or proper modal logic, but it sounds exactly like Fundie logic... therefore well said! :D
Holy fuck I might have to animate this
*EVERYONE LAUGHED*
@@lukostello Do it , JUST DO IT
MAKE YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE
(please link me the video once you upload it)
Your imagined bank account is not *necessary* in the same way God's existence is, but nice try.
A maximally great sandwich must have bacon, because bacon is a great making property.
I sense an internet meme brewing
Which is why it sucks to be a Jew, a Muslim, or a vegetarian of any faith or lack thereof.
Also, it makes the Flying Spaghetti monster a second rate god.
***** there may be bacon bits in the flying spaghetti monster... we don't know the full recipe. FSM is prepared in mysterious ways.
Tjaart Blignaut
Some vegetarian atheist told me the meatballs are tofu!!!
That would make FSM an evil, deceitful being.
***** BLASPHEMY!
I think Russell best described the problems with every ontological argument. He said "the real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thought?"
Since we can't prove solipsism to be wrong, I think the answer is clearly "NO".
Russell goes on to say, "If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things, if not, not." People who use the MOA think modal logic is just such a bridge, when it is not.
Also, I think it's pretty funny that IP says that the MOA is "the best argument for the existence of god" but he also says that it isn't meant to persuade you that god actually exists. The "best argument for the existence of god" doesn't actually persuade you that god exists? That's very telling.
Do you know where he admits that it is not meant to persuade? I don't think it is in his orignial video. This admission would make a nice video unto itself.
AntiCitizenX It's in the video where he argues that the MOA isn't question begging.
ua-cam.com/video/FC94N-mZnrM/v-deo.htmlm1s
I remember an older video from dasamericanatheist (that I just rewatched) where he claims St. Anselm originally devised the ontological "argument" as a meditation on God's nature to better understand God devotionally rather than as a way to convince nonbelievers of his existence. More of a "how God exists" statement rather than one substantiating that God exists.
This may be why IP thinks it's the best argument for God while not being persuasive: it encapsulates his theology and what he thinks about the nature of God, but it won't capture the attention of anyone that doesn't already hold such views. In that sense, it isn't a very effective argument at all.
Ontological arguments always seem to be used as "gotcha" arguments against atheists, a simple way of saying "See? Logic proves my beliefs! Checkmate Atheists!" IP says basically that in his video when he states, like a sophist, that the MOA when presented correctly is "impossible to refute."
Is the MOA a rebadge of the arguments from Thomas Aquinas? It seems like everything I've heard lately from the religitard apologists boils down to Aquinas' proofs #2 and #3.
TheMessianicManic God exists, therefore, god exists.
How could you argue with such ironclad reasoning!?!
I really wish this ontological argument would work. That way i could define Natalie Portman into being my girlfriend. That would be pretty neat.
WRONG because Natalie Portman isn’t omnipresent
@@christopherlin4706 you ruined my dreams :(
I will be the most powerful Jedi ever!
@@shaunakvaidya2215 Destroy Simps
@@christopherlin4706 It's not a matter of omnipresence. It's a matter of whether the condition of Natalie Portman being his girlfriend is necessary for all possible worlds.
I think the flying spaghetti monster is greater simply due to the fact that he is all that the Abrahamic God is, and maximally delicious. I doubt the Abrahamic God is maximally delicious.
(I lol'd XD)
Let's not forget he is maximally pastalicious!
CHECK FUCKING MATE ATHEISTS!
Oh , and the Flying Spaghettie Monster is a moral being that never did a genocide
@@omnipotencebeyondlogic1786 he commited ... a pastacide
catholics disagree lol
The ontological argument has got to be the least convincing argument I have ever heard.
If you looked up the textbook definition of "grasping at straws" you would find the modal ontological argument.
+Miope
What about Kalam? "The Universe MUST have a reason, therefore MY god" (with a couple of more steps only half of which deserve to be called "logical"...)
These two could be siblings as it all stems from defining god as having EXACTLY the right attributes so that the argument WILL conclude he is necessary for it all to make sense. AND ignoring that "there must logically be a god" does not give you a photo of its passport, so "there must logically be Yawwy" is NOT what the argument says, only what a believer will read into it because obviously there cannot be any other god fitting into the argument.
No, it's great. Let me show you how great it is. Ok, I will now use the ontological argument to bring into existence in my pocket, the most valuable possible diamond. Ahem. Ok. So let us consider the set of all possible valuable diamonds that could exist in my pocket. A diamond that exists is necessarily more valuable than a diamond that does not exist. Therefore, the most valuable diamond in my pocket is one that does exist, rather than one that does not exist. Therefore, there is a maximum possible value diamond that could possibly exist in my pocket, that necessarily exists in my pocket right now. I will now check my pockets and find this diamond and therefore be set for life...... checking my pockets............ why didn't it worrrrrrk!!!!!
medexamtoolsdotcom Exactly. You can’t just argue something into existence. You need evidence.
@@medexamtoolscom It's not the same thing. It only works for things with necessary existence. Look up the S5 axiom.
I define god as any cup of coffee. Therefore god exist. Checkmate atheist!
That was my thought when the video started, but they went with an even dumber argument instead.
Non-sequitur fail. You have yet to provide any evidence that any cups of coffee exist.
Only Satan would ruin coffee with cow semen!
#godhatecream
+Andrew Brown
It is possible that cup of coffee exist in some possible kitchen table. Therefore a cup of coffee exist in every impossible living rooms. If you don't accept this proof, you're an idiot!
+MomoTheBellyDancer, writes _"With or without cream? Think carefully. The fate of your eternal soul depends on your answer."_
Without obviously, with cream coffee is just a poor man's latte.
These guys use philosophy like priests use choir boys.
Then where are the children
You mean they abuse philosophy? Lol
1) Things that exist, exist. (law of identity)
2) Things that exist necessarily are a subset of things that exist. (definition)
3) Therefore, things that exist necessarily, exist. (from 1 and 2)
4) Wizards are things that exist necessarily. (Definition)
5) Therefore, wizards exist. (from 3 and 4)
6) Voldemort is a wizard. (definition)
7) Therefore, Voldemort exists. (from 5 and 6)
Fucking with definitions is fun, isn't it Christians?
reminds me of the witch scene from Monty Python and the holy grail
Ooh, ooh do one for the FSM! :P
Voldemort is a maximally evil being. And we all know that an evil being that exists is more evil than one who doesn't. Duh.
An excellent and accurate refutation!
+a foul thing
"The argument is ironclad. The beef is with the premise that affirms that God possibly exists."
Sorry, I obviously do not have a good graps on the written form of modal logic or any other systematic approach to the subject, so excuse my curiosity / disbelief... Let me say it in words as *I* do understand this though... layman terms.
Shouldn't it be "...that affirms that God *necessarily* exists", as you have started out the chain of arguments with "god exists only if he necessarily exists"... making that in my understanding the bottom most premise to the god proposition... That later on "necessarily" is equated or coupled to "possibly" existing should not overwrite that or should it?
Basically it comes back to something the video has already said: Necessarily only comes into play through the definition of that being an attribute an "maximally great" being HAS to have.
IMO "Possibly" is waving your hand or jingling the keys to distract from that, but Necessarily is just the same as saying "if we define god as a being that MUST exist he logically DOES exist" and the definiton is arbitrarily chosen and does not hang on any logical conclusion of its own.
And another thing... wouldn't the modal ontological argument work for ANY deity, as long as you include the necessary bit in your definition of it? I'm not sure how that is a good thing for theists... it again does not prove their claim, only the logical possibility of defining AN god into existence... whose identity afterwards requires additional confirmation... Kalam all over again. (both with the defining into being halfway through so that the conclusion is forced and with the jump to "Hey who would have thought... turns out it is MY god... what a coincidence!")
P1 it is possible that a maximally great being concerned with the salvation of our souls exists.
P2 A desirable trait for a maximally great being concerned with the salvation of our souls is to be visible.
C. from 1 and 2 Since no maximally great being concerned with the salvation of our souls is visible then no such being exists..
You're just denying all the visible, caused design in the finely tuned, intelligent pocket watch, created for this beach, that clearly didn't pop up next to the ocean from nothing, ffs.
Checkmate
Exodus 34:14 - "Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
Unless jealousy is now a positive trait, the bible god cannot be a "Maximally Great Being" now can he?
Ah, but by the definition of objective morality, (morality passed down by an objectively good source) jealousy (or coveting) is objectively wrong. Therefore, God is objectively *not* an objectively good source. Therefore, the tenant against coveting is no longer objectively wrong. Therefore, God is no longer objectively not objectively right. This goes on for a while.
Who said anything about a positive trait? Anyway, how is it less maximally great to be jealous? If you were rich and famous, that would be good, but if you were rich, famous AND jealous, that only ADDS to you, doesn't it? "Great" doesn't mean "satisfies your standards of what you consider positive".
@@medexamtoolscom Great means "of ability, quality above the normal average" so if we consider your rich and famous person jealous, jealousy would have to be positive in order to make it better quality. So yes. It does have to be a positive trait. When we consider something better quality we don't consider it such just because it has more features.
Even if we did, with the way language works, jealous is a value term, so if something it is comparatively not jealous, then it still has the same amount of features, because you could call the thing that is "not jealous" something else, e.g. "content".
Now comparing your rich, famous and jealous celebrity to a rich, famous, and content celebrity, it's clear to see which most people would prefer. So the "quality" (i.e. "greatness") of the latter celebrity is more so than the former.
@@twoofskulls7076the mistake you are making is that you are importing your own standard of greatness. How is the quality of jealousy bad? By whose standard is it bad? If you wife/gf sleeps with another man is it bad to be jealous? Would a great wife give reason for jealousy?
If your wife has another partner, it is bad if you don't get jealous.
Maximally great video!
As a Christian, I agree with most of the things that were said in this video.
The things I highly disagreed with are that "nothing is necessary" and that possible implies "maybe exists or maybe not."
I think a formulation of the LCA proves that there is something which is necessary. Possible just implies "maybe exists." However, not "maybe not." Example: A necessary thing is possible but it does not fail to exist in any possible world. So "possibly not" or "maybe not" is excluded.
Other than that, it demonstrated my thoughts about this ontological argument. I suggest this formulation of the Leibniz Cosmological Argument for proof of a necessary being that explains all contingent things:
(1) Every contingent fact has an explanation.
(2) There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
(3) Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.
(4) This explanation must involve a necessary object.
But that argument is impossible. If premise 2 is true, you can´t possibly know that premise 1 is true.
You don´t know whether a contingent fact can or cannot exist without explanation, and if you define a contingent fact as something that can´t exist without explanation, you can´t know that anything is contingent.
Christian Forbes You don’t know what a Maximally Great Being is:
A MGB has the following characteristics:
He is “a necessary being” (a necessary being exists in all possible worlds. It cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world. It is greater (better) to be necessary than NOT to be necessary - which would mean NOT existing in all possible worlds)
He is wholly good
He is all-knowing (omniscient) and
He is all-powerful (omnipotent) A key point to remember is that although God is all-powerful that does NOT mean that he can do the illogical.
For example, he can’t make “square circles”. He can make “squares” and “circles” but not a “square circle” b/c the definition of both of those concepts contradict each other.
Another example would be that God cannot make a “significantly free person” (meaning that the person can freely choose between right and wrong)- and then force the significantly free person to do right. If God did this, the person would not be “significantly free”. This would be a contradiction of the definition of what it means to be significantly free. Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, 1974, p. 45-53
@@Monday2705 Did you have fun spamming your copypasta across the comments section. I refuted it all once, and I don't feel the need to do so again.
I wonder what the people in the Lord of the Rings Universe think of this video.
I know they haven't invented computers or internet, but it's got to exist in that universe since this video is maximally great.
I literally started laughing when you said i can imagine a being with all of your qualities plus my being is able to beat yours in an arm wrestling contest there fore mine is greater that was Awesome :)
Thanks for this one. I have had some long discussions in the comments sections with IP about this one a couple years ago. What bothered me the most was probably "necessity" and how subjective values like "greatness" suddenly can be viewed as being both objective and also have a "maximum" level all of a sudden.
I remember I asked where the "necessary" aspect of god can be derived from, but since this argument isn't based on observed reality, the entire concept of god must apparently be constructed from conjecture. I never received a satisfactory answer from him on that one.
I am happy to say I spotted most of the problems you adress here, but I really appreciate you putting them into context and explaining the proper terminology. It's one thing to "sense" that something's wrong with an argument, but when the right words are missing, it's hard to explain why. Thanks again.
"It's one thing to "sense" that something's wrong with an argument, but when the right words are missing, it's hard to explain why. Thanks again."
It always makes me happy to hear this. I think this may be one of the few things I can uniquely contribute to the movement that many others struggle with.
The necessity of God can be understood by considering the possible categories. God is either metaphysically contingent or metaphysically necessary. God cannot be metaphysically contingent, because inorder to be so, in a given possible world, the statement "God exists" would need to be able to be true at one point and false in another based on some other criteria. However, if we posit God in a possible world, then the statement "God exists" is necessarily true for that possible world. That is to say, that at no point would the statement "God does not exist" would ever be true within that possible world. There is no metaphysically possible entity or scenario which could make the statement "God exists" or even the statement "God does not exist" true within that possible world. This means that God cannot be metaphysically contingent, and therefore must fall into the category of metaphysically necessary entities.
@@joshuayoudontneedtoknow9559
_"God cannot be metaphysically contingent, because inorder to be so, in a given possible world, the statement "God exists" would need to be able to be true at one point and false in another based on some other criteria."_
First, Why use the word "God" here when "X" should suffice? There is concept creep and baggage in the word "God", as you know.
I also want to point out that "God" can certainly be contingent, depending on what you mean by it.
_"However, if we posit God in a possible world, then the statement "God exists" is necessarily true for that possible world."_
Sure, and that would be true for any other concept as well. But to determine that "X" is possible requires we first determine that whatever you mean by "X" actually can exist. (The concept of God isn't necessarily incoherent but whether anything can "exist" outside of physical, temporal, observable existence is not something we should merely assert.)
_"...This means that God cannot be metaphysically contingent, and therefore must fall into the category of metaphysically necessary entities."_
No, possible in one possible world is not the same as necessary in all possible worlds. I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. I agree that the first event at the beginning of time is necessary, but calling it "God" is premature --- especially since we both know that the word "God" isn't a particularly neutral word. So, this argument does not prove God as "necessary", it just calls the first event "God" in order to skip from possible to necessary.
@@Bonko78 We can certainly use a variable here. In this case, any X such that X is not both metaphysically possible and metaphysically possibly not at the same time must either be necessarily so or necessarily not so. So, something like the mathematical statement 1+1=2 would not be metaphysically possibly true and metaphysically possibly not true at the same time, because as a mathematical statement if it is true, it is necessarily true and if it is false, it is necessarily false. "God" is a being with this same quality.
It isn't true that the statement "X exists" is necessarily true for all X. For example, there was a point at which I did not exist, so the statement "I exist" isnt true necessarily. The same could be said for all matter and energy in the universe, because the statement "the universe exists" wasnt true necessarily either, especially since it came into being. The fact that matter and energy are interchangeable means that at one point matter can exist and be changed, so the statement "matter exists" isnt true necessarily. Water can be broken down chemically, such that the statement "water exists" wouldnt be true necessarily either. I'm not sure that there is any real logical inconsistency with the idea of something existing outside space time, as long as it wasn't physical. This doesn't guarantee the existence of such a thing, but it does make it metaphysically possible, as long as it doesn't violate the laws of logic.
I'm not speaking of necessity in a merely causal sense, but rather a metaphysical one. This would entail that anything which is metaphysically necessary would exist. If any X were not metaphysically contingent, then it must either be necessarily X or necessarily not X. This would be true independently of whether or not X was the cause of the universe or whatever possible ways that reality could have been.
@@joshuayoudontneedtoknow9559
Unfortunately, one can not simply make "God exists" _true by definition_ since the statement "God exists" does not contain definitions that allow us to evaluate it's truth value. It is not an _analytical_ statement (like "1+1=2") but rather a _synthetic_ statement which requires knowledge beyond the mere meaning of the words to determine their truth value. Even if you were to merely change the definition of "God" to contain some implicit truth value, it would just be the stated definition of the word "God" and would have nothing to do with whether a God exists beyond the dictionary.
One of the problems with ontological arguments for the existence of God (modal or not), as well as other rhetorical arguments, is that if you don't already believe in God, then the argument is unconvincing, *but*, unless you have a good philosophical training, it is not easy to point out what exactly is unconvincing. It should also be unconvincing for a theist who's not blind by confirmation bias.
This video by AntiCitizenX is a good start for being able to understand why and when this argument begs the question.
It doesn’t beg the question.
A MGB has the following characteristics:
He is “a necessary being” (a necessary being exists in all possible worlds. It cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world. It is greater (better) to be necessary than NOT to be necessary - which would mean NOT existing in all possible worlds)
He is wholly good
He is all-knowing (omniscient) and
He is all-powerful (omnipotent) A key point to remember is that although God is all-powerful that does NOT mean that he can do the illogical.
For example, he can’t make “square circles”. He can make “squares” and “circles” but not a “square circle” b/c the definition of both of those concepts contradict each other.
Another example would be that God cannot make a “significantly free person” (meaning that the person can freely choose between right and wrong)- and then force the significantly free person to do right. If God did this, the person would not be “significantly free”. This would be a contradiction of the definition of what it means to be significantly free. Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, 1974, p. 45-53
@@Monday2705 I'll try to be short. Premise 2 begs the question as it basically says "If (X thing defined by people as necessary) possibly exists, then X exists". Assuming that the Maximally Great Being is God and not some other being also begs the question.
The free-will defense falls apart on many levels.
1) Us "flawed, sinful" beings see plenty of good reasons to justifiably interfere with free-will, such as with rape, murder, genocide, etc. If we are moral enough to try and intervene and stop those, violating the free-will of the criminal in the process, why isn't God moral enough do the same?
2) Saying "There might be good reasons..." is an entirely useless statement because there also _might not_ be good reasons. That's like saying "Hitler _might_ have had good reasons for the holocaust." Until you can actually give me a good reason, it's a completely useless statement.
3) The argument that God want's to prioritize free-will is inherently self contradictory if you believe we can't sin (or have our desire to sin removed) in heaven. If so, God's endgame goal was to make us "automatons" incapable of doing evil anyway.
4) The idea of Free-Will itself contradicts several bible verses on predestination, such as John 6:44, Romans 8:28-30, or Ephesians 1:4-5,11-12, Revelation 13:7-8, or others.
5) The idea of Free-Will itself contradicts the idea of God knowing the future. If he knows I'm going to sin in the future, that event is now deterministic, and I have no free-will in the matter. All solutions to this either sacrifice God's omniscience/timelessness or our free-will.
@@JohnSmith-xf1zu P2 only begs the question if saying a triangle has 3 sides begs the question. That God exists follows logically from the fact that God is a necessary being. It would be a logical contradiction for God to not exist just as it would be a logical contradiction for a triangle to have 4 sides.
You can call the MGB whatever the fuck you want. It can be a pixie, a fairy, or whatever random string of letters you prefer, it's just semantics. If the entity in question has identical properties to God, then it is God no matter what you call it.
Regarding free will:
1. God has done something. He's created moral agents who can recognize evil acts and that will freely act to prevent them from occurring. Otherwise, you will have to show that God MUST prevent all evil acts, otherwise he is immoral. Good luck with that.
2. That God might have sufficient reasons is a simple defeater for the argument from evil. You are arguing that is impossible (and therefore must prove that God cannot have good reasons) or improbable (and therefore must prove that it is unlikely that God has good reasons) for God to exist and allow evil. Comparing God to any human fails as a comparison because God is able to know all future outcomes of an act. Hitler could not know what good, if any, would result from the Holocaust, but God would know and therefore might have morally sufficient reasons for allowing it to occur. You would have to prove that it is impossible or improbable for such reasons to exist, which is just pure speculation. So long as such reasons COULD exist, there is no contradiction.
3. Free Will and God's goal being contradictory has a simple defeater as well. That being not having a desire to sin is a result of a free choice made to spend eternity with God. Therefore it is not God that forces people to not sin, but people who choose to be with God and no longer sin. If God forced everyone to choose him, that would be a violation of free will.
4 and 5. Yes, it is God who calls people to faith. That doesn't mean that people can't freely reject God if they so choose.
Omniscience does not contradict free will. Knowledge has no casual relation to action, that is God knowing something does not cause it to occur. God knows what will happen but that knowledge does not necessitate what must happen. God's knowledge of the future is then in that sense temporally prior by logically anterior to the act in question.
@@grantgooch5834 Golly been a year on this, but I'll try to get back into it. But before that, I know this is kinda long, so feel free to only address parts that you want to keep discussing. I also might not get back to it for a while, as I've got a lot of upcoming work, and I won't always have the mental wherewithal to write an essay for a UA-cam comment. Anyway...
Pulled straight from the Webster Dictionary website:
Begging the question means "to elicit a specific question as a reaction or response," and can often be replaced with "a question that begs to be answered." However, a lesser used and more formal definition is "to ignore a question under the assumption it has already been answered." The phrase itself comes from a translation of an Aristotelian phrase rendered as "beg the question" but meaning "assume the conclusion."
There's no way for me to tell if there is actually question begging or not, as you never provided a question that needed answering with it. But I can roll with it. So suppose somehow in some hypothetical world we had no idea that a triangle has three sides and didn't agree on the number three, and cannot readily demonstrate a triangle. When trying to determine the number of sides a triangle has, simply saying "I define triangles to have 3 sides...therefore triangles have 3 sides" would still be question begging. You are assuming the conclusion in premise one.
So going back to the ontological argument, pretty much every version includes some version of "necessary existence" or "necessary being". As defined by R_NO, "A necessary being exists in all possible worlds. It cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world." This is literally defining it as something that "exists" and "cannot possibly not exist", which is a double negative that resolves to "it exists". Saying "exists in all possible worlds" is just saying "exists in the actual world" with extra steps. So the ontological argument is a long winded way of saying "I define God as a being that, among other things, exists.... Therefore, God exists. QED" This is assuming the conclusion in the premises. Hence, Question Begging.
And we could also go into the subjectivity of what could be a maximally great being and what that would look like, since "great" is an inherently subjective word, but I'll leave that for later to keep this already long post more brief.
1) I'm a little surprised that I need to explain this, but people claiming to be moral and good, if they see a rape and have the power to stop it, they ought to stop the rape. If they have the power to easily stop it, but instead turn away and don't provide help or only do things that they know won't help at all, then they are not being a good person. Let me ask you, if you saw someone being raped, and you have the _guaranteed_ power to stop it, either with a gun, calling the police, maybe your big muscles, or something else, would you stop it? I would, and I believe you would too, because I'd like to believe you are a good person. So why doesn't God if he's good? And (please stop me if I'm getting ahead of myself) if the answer is something like "God stops some but can't stop all without violating freewill", as I've heard many times, what percentage or rapes need to be kept around in order to say we have freewill? And what would truly be lost if we didn't have the "will" to rape, or we we're at least prevented from carrying it out? Is the possible "will" to carry out rape really so important? Are there not some sufferings entirely preventable while still allowing other lesser sufferings?
2) If saying "there might be good reasons" is a defeater, then by that logic, the Holocaust must be fine because Hitler might have had good reasons. Do you see the problem here? I'm not saying it's impossible he's got good reasons that we don't know. However, until someone is able to demonstrate them, Hitler is still a mass murdering genocidal maniac. I don't need to prove 100% that there's no possible scenario where there might be a good reason in order to say that about Hitler, do I? I just need point out that no such good reason can be or has been reasonably demonstrated. But you've turned around and have said there might have been good reasons for the Holocaust. Okay, demonstrate them. If you can't, you cannot justify the claim that there are good reasons for the Holocaust. And TBH, you might want to take a step back for a second. As you have now put yourself in the position of believing that there may be good reasons for the Holocaust, that we "might have morally sufficient reasons for allowing it to occur." Take a step back for a second and think about how you are literally defending the existence of Nazi death camps with "IDK, something good may or may not come of it". Just some honest concern from me to you.
3) Freewill implies I have the will to choose something else, does it not? If you guarantee that everyone will make choice A and no one will chose choice B, that means there is no "will" to choose choice B. According to scriptures, everyone chooses choice B at some point "There is no one righteous, no, not one", "for all have sinned and fallen short", etc. But suddenly B is no longer an option people have the will to take. The will of people has suddenly changed such that people no longer have the will for option B. That's not free will. But maybe we can come at this from another direction. Do you believe as some do that Satan was thrown from heaven for his sins? Does this not imply that evil can and will be done in heaven, making this an entirely mute point?
4) I've heard this answer before. Let me ask you, do you believe God has made sufficient and unambiguous revelation to everyone, and has predestined everyone for heaven? The reality or religions and the world and my own life would certainly not imply so. However, if so, then these are entirely meaningless verses. If not though, then God has predestined some people for hell. The Revelation verse seems to imply the latter. "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world."
5) I'll try putting it in a more direct way with an example. Suppose I walk down a path where I can turn left or right. If God knows I will go left beforehand, and I do, then he knows the future. (Or made a lucky guess, but we'll assume omniscience in this case). If I turn right however, I show that God did not know the future beforehand. In order for God to be right, I must walk left. Since God knows beforehand I will go left and cannot be wrong, I can only walk left for this to still be a true statement. So the option of turning right is off the table for God to be omniscient. Predetermined, 100% certain, knowledge of the future _does,_ in fact, "necessitate what must happen". For if anything besides that happens, then it was not 100% certain knowledge of the future (omniscience) by definition. We cannot have both "I chose to turn right" and "God knows beforehand I will choose to turn left". One of those statements must be false. Either I cannot have the freewill ability to choose right, or God cannot have his omniscient knowledge that I will turn left.
@@JohnSmith-xf1zu I would like to add: what about free will of rape victim? Victim doesn't want to be raped, so why is rape allowed to happen by god(s), do(es) god(s) care more about free will of rapist than free will of victim?
What I like about these various versions of the ontological argument, is that they all hinge on God having all the omni-characteristics intact in all their glory; maximally so.
Then, when you encounter the omni-characteristics in other discussions about God's properties, suddenly they're not so 'omni' after all. Eventually, God is defined as a being that can do all the things he can do.
yahweh in the bible made mistakes and admitted to them, thus that 'lesser making property' proves that the Christian god is not maximally great..
Pshht we can't start talking boug the bible or its all gonna explode
Apologetics intentions are very simple - make as many arguments as possible, show them to others and convince them. And if fail, make more arguments and try again. I used to be like that too, then i learned about logical fallacies and to focus more on argument quality instead of quantity.
the first time I heard the ontological argument I thought it was a joke.
Am I the only one who thought the MOA was at least a cool puzzle to solve, like a Rubik's Cube? I have to admit the argument had me going for a for a couple of minutes until I reached the conclusion even Plantinga admits as an alternative response: I don't know an MGB with the property of necessary existence is possible, therefore I don't know that it exists in any possible world. I like Craig's more forceful approach, that it is upon the opponent to prove and MGB impossible, as if agnosticism about it's possibility is not an option. Of course with Craig, though I like his style, everything is supposed to be a forced conclusion. He wants to back you against the wall like the jouster in his Reasonable Faith logo.
So excited when I saw this title.
3 years ago or so, I talked to IP about this video when it was brand new. I knew him personally, actually. My counter argument was that if god exists in all possible worlds, then where is god within Spongebob Squarepants? Where is god within this crappy cartoon I just drew? I also talked about the subjectivity of "greatness", and how by this argument a maximally great taco must also exist by necessity. Its not like "greatness" is an objective, measurable attribute.
I've seen a fair amount of videos addressing this argument, but none that have spotted such fundamental errors from the very first sentence. Great work! though in my opinion, a little harsher than your norm.
You actually knew him personally? I can only imagine what kind of weirdo he is in real life. The guy's videos are just so scrambled that I can only imagine him as a terribly dysfunctional human being.
@@AntiCitizenX Honestly man, i watched one video of yours, loved it, subscribed, and then watched this one. I imediately dropped the sub like 2 minutes in. There is literally no reason to be so rude to some one you don't know about this topic. That is so immature and completely shredded my respect for your channel. If you want to spread your ideas, being even moderately respectful is step one.
@@aibrainlet8041 1 - it is possible that you are subscribed at AntiCitizenX channel
2 - Al Brainlet is necessarily subscribed at anticitizen x channel
3 - therefore, you are subscribed at AntiCitizenX channel
i have a pretty simple refutation to this "argument" which uses their same tactics.
1)it is possible for a world without god,to exist.
2)god is defined as "a being that exists in all possible worlds"
therefor god doesn't exist.
FractalMachine You just made the first one up though. How do you know it is possible for a world without god to exist? That is controversial at best.
@@greganzi8874 what about the peano axioms, which only describe the natural numbers, never mentioning any god nor being able to do so or a world which only consists of one photon or a world which consists of no particles at all, not even god's constituents. All of these seem to me extremely consistent ( i doubt you to find an inconsistency in such a worlds ). And, since they have no inconsistencies, they are on the set of universes we are analysing
victor duarte Peon axioms don’t apply to the real world though, unless you belive in a very radical form of platonism (and I think any but the most simple forms of platonism are inconsistent with atheism).
Either way, inconsistency in math is extremely controversial, due to Godel’s incompletness theorem, you can’t really talk about “complete” systems unless they are finite, even then it is still slightly controversial. So, just because there is no god in any of the proposed axioms or any possible theorem, you still can’t evalue the truthness of the existence of god. So that also applys to the single photon system (even though I don’t agree it is a possible universe, because there would not be a causal chain).
As for a world without god’s constituents, it assumes god is physical, which is also controversial at best, as most religions, and even philosophical concepts of god determine him to be imaterial.
@@greganzi8874 From my understanding of the arguments, all the "possible universes" we were talking about were only logically consistent ones, which all of my examples are. If you have some other idea of what a possible universe is supposed to mean, i'd like to hear it.
Also i dont see any controversis on the concept of consistency due to godel incompleteness theorem, id like you to elaborate on that as well. Finally, the photon universe i talked about essentially was meant to have an initial cause "a photon exists" and that photon's path in the universe would be decided by the laws of physics. I dont see why it doesnt have a chain of causality in there nor why should it matter to the consistency of the system.
victor duarte You misunderstood. Yes, a possible world is logically consistent. But the controversies are related to completeness, not consistency. It is possible that the existence of god or not is umprovabel through direct implication. I was trying to say is that because god’s existence is not axiomatic or unprovable does not mean he does not exist
The worlds you proposed don’t imply a non-existence of god, unless you can prove it, your point is mute.
Related to the single photon argument, the impossibility of such a system is not my argument. On this topic though, I am refering to the existence of such an universe existing not having cause, I don’t think that is a possible universe, although it might be as I am not well versed in modern physics, but it seems illogical to assume a single photon existing eternally without change or origin. Also, causation seems to be a necessity for any reality that has change. In this sense, I mean logical necessity that one thing leads to another.
Ah, the ontological. Allow me to retort:
"1) Maximally great beings are things that exist necessarily. (Definition)
2) Therefore, maximally great beings exist.
3) God is a maximally great being. (definition)
4) Therefore, God exists."
1) Anything that exists is subject to eventual decay.
2) Something that decays can no longer be maximally great.
3) The only way to avoid decaying is to not exist.
4) Something that does not decay would be more maximally great than something that does decay.
5) Therefore, God cannot exist, lest it be subject to decay.
Eat it, ontologicalists.
I know you typed out this illogic 2 years ago in your ignorance, but I just wanted to check in to make sure you actually know better now.
The second group of premises speaking of decay is inherently logically absurd and contradictory. So you actually sabotaged your own "analogy." In the first argument you argued that that which is "Maximally Great" is something that has necessary existence (at least that seems to be what you were saying). In the second argument you just ignored this, creating for yourself a contradiction from the outset while just behaving AS IF there was no direct logical contradiction from the beginning, and saying all of a sudden that "anything that exists is subject to eventual decay." That's a logical contradiction already. So what do you actually believe? It comes across like you are suffering from logical schizophrenia. If you put forth the first argument to make fun of it or even if you are serious, then you cannot use a non-analogous "analogy" as some sort of counter. Isn't that common sense? Then you go on to say "Something that decays can no longer be maximally great." But isn't that already internally logically incoherent? If you say that it can decay, then you are at the same time via logical force saying that it "NEVER was Maximally Great in the first place." Is this not so? You self-sabotaged. Atheists are infamous for being terrible at logic.
+TruthUnadulterated Illogic. Yeah. From a guy so desperate to convince himself he knows more than fuck all that he has to use Truth in his name like the Cowardly Lion getting a medal of valor from the wizard of Oz.
"The second group of premises speaking of decay is inherently logically absurd and contradictory."
Demonstrate this. All of observable reality points to things decaying. You can't just *say* "Nuh-uh muh magic-man-belong-sky is special". Because, fucktard, *THAT* is a bit of _illogic_ called special pleading. Congratulations failing before you even started. Or to put it your own way, sabotaging your own argument, which is not the same as fake-quote analogy close-fake-quote. IT WASN'T AN ANALOGY YOU FUCKING LACKWIT.
This is the best you can come up with to "prove me wrong". Take that to heart, fucktard. Understand that you don't even know what the words you're spewing actually mean and you think you know more than your betters. Learn from this. I know you won't, because you're fucking retarded, but I can always hope.
Hey bitch? Did you miss the part where you OPEN YOUR ARGUMENT with a fallacy, invalidating the entire fucking thing? I'm *STILL* waiting for you to demonstrate that there is such a thing that does not and will never decay ever. Stop posting fifty paragraphs of bullshit and just show me one thing that will never decay. Then we can talk, bitch.
+EdwardHowton Lol, bitter illogical atheist stereotype. What are you not understanding? Why are you asking me this Red Herring/Straw Man about naming one thing that will never decay? That is NOT the issue! Man, you are *_terrible_* at logical thinking. The issue is WHY WOULD YOU CALL SOMETHING THAT CAN DECAY SOMETHING ONCE "MAXIMALLY GREAT" *IN THE FIRST PLACE?* Are you really that slow? Because you went out of your way to use a term that already entails certain things that CONTRADICT your premise intrinsically, it means that either (a) you did not know what such a term as "maximally great" conveyed, or (b) you did know but didn't care and proceeded to set up a premise reducible to a reductio in your pride, or (c) you understood this fact after I spoke with you but in your pride you simply chose to *BEHAVE AS IF* the issue is with what I had said despite the conspicuous illogic seen in your second-paragraph argument. Lord have mercy, you are such an embarrassing stereotype.
+EdwardHowton All right liar. You presented no Straw Man, huh? So you say, "YOU said I was making a baseless assumption that everything decays." Ok liar. Here's your chance to point out where *I said you were making a baseless assumption that everything decays.* Point out where I said this. I will be looking for quotation marks in your response Straw Manning liar. You will do this if you are honest with nothing to hide. When you say that I dodge, all I see from you is self-projection. Stop condemning yourself, liar.
The fundamental problem with the Ontological Argument is that you can not use logic to force something into existence. Reality is not our bitch.
You have to remember that IP holds to a worldview of monistic idealism. Thus he denies the existence of an external reality altogether to get around the analytical/synthetic problem.
"Congratulations, dipshit." Your delivery of that line made me choke on my water. I think you're trying to kill me.
"Too dumb or too dishonest" - My bet is on dishonest. I think these people become expert philosophers in order to construct these arguments in the most obscure way.
you mean they are all in their heart only pulpit lawyers writing the small print of belief? :D
Originally intended to deceive. BUT not everyone who spouts it understands it (and the flaws).
I really don’t think theyre being intentionally dishonest, they just have presuppositions that blind them to errors in their logic. I don’t think there is bad intentions behind it, they just can’t see what they’re missing.
@@Iamwrongbut I think they became dishonest, and very intentionally so, the moment they declared faith to be a virtue and demonized doubt. This is the original sin of religion, everything else naturally follows from that.
Spot on!
This video shows the proper philosophical way of refuting the modal argument. I will favourite it!
My two cents for refuting Alvin Plantinga's "Modal Ontological Argument": Refutation of A. Plantinga's (Modal) New Ontological Argument - It bears repeating
Thank you!
I love how none of the examples of necessarily existent things actually exist. Numbers and shape definitions are concepts we've developed to streamline our understanding of reality. They exist in our minds only.
That's a fairly weak assumption to rely on if that's the only objection to the Ontological Argument. (Thankfully, there are much stronger flaws with the OA that don't assume that mathematical realism is wrong.)
What he was saying was that the number 2 doesn't exist. Can you go pick up a 2? It is a concept/Idea, therefore it only exists where something made them up. Since there are possible worlds where there is nothing to make them they don't exist there. They are not "Necessary" by his definition.
Why are you asking if you can pick up a 2? That's not a good test for existence. You can't pick up love or fear or redness or liberalism or hatred, as these aren't tangible objects with physical mass or shape, but they still exist.
Then you say 2 is a concept, ok fine. But it doesn't follow that it only exists where something/someone made it up, it exists (as a concept) as long as someone in some possible world could make it up: and that IS true in all possible worlds. So numbers, on this conception, are necessary beings.
No, I meant that since it isn't tangible it is directly linked to our existence because it is a concept. Concepts CANNOT exist on their own... they only exist where there is something to invent and use them. Therefore it follows that there is a possible world (indeed many) in which numbers don't exist and 2 isn't "Necessary" by his definition. The idea that ideas exist on their own is pretty out there. Yes anywhere where where something thinks they could conceptualize 2, but it only exists where there is a conceptualize-er
James pratt I think I get where the point is though and I'm sure you do too. Even if nobody was there to say it or come up with it, if 2 things exist then they are 2 things. That is, if something exists then there is an amount of it. we dont have to give it a numerical definition so it could be called anything but if I see a water bottle i dont need to say there's only one, the water bottle exists and existence implies. I get this argument a lot and I always hear 2 is a concept that only exists if thought of but that's stupid right? Yes the vocalization or thought of a number can only exist if we think of it but who here really doesn't understand that things have amounts? Concept is the wrong word as it implies thought or action but what I'm trying to say is that when the first atom blinked into existence it was an atom, 1 atom, I know you'll jump on me saying "see you had to use a number to describe it" but I'm sure we're all grown up to understand what I mean. Pardon me if i rambled but this is tough and im fuckin dumb.
That’s one hell of an imagination. You are absolutely correct. Debates gives deluded people like Craig, Hovind, Ham, Comfort, and Bruggencate credibility they shouldn’t have and don’t deserve. It allows them to spread their warped ideas to unfortunate people who may accept these ideas without seeking the facts for themselves.
I define the "existing unicorn" as being an unicorn which, by definition, exists. Think about the existing unicorn. Does it exist? If you answered "no" or "I don't know", then you weren't thinking about the existing unicorn, but some other unicorn instead. The existing unicorn exists by definition.
The funny thing is, "existence of X" is not even a property of X itself. Rather, existence of X within a set Y is a property of Y. And if the existence quantifier is unbounded then we have to go meta and talk about a property of entire universes, namely containing X within them. In any case, this is yet another purely linguistic confusion that people who actually know anything about logic should instantly recognize as such.
Of the entire intellectual discourse on UA-cam I found that you come out on top! Your videos are unchallenged in clarity and quality, when it comes to philosophy. This is, as far as I'm concerned, THE most interesting channel on here! Keep it up, will ya?
Outstanding, X! "Until Christians learn to defend their beliefs through _evidence_ rather than _rhetoric_..." Exactly! Which is why I refuse to piddle around with the Presup or any other "philosophical" or "logical" defense of their faith and stick solely to biblical apologetics. _That's_ where they go for their "evidence" and its abundantly easy to show them they have no recourse there, either.
Unfortunately the mind numb indoctrinated allow their willful ignorance to kick in and completely disregard this entire argument, passing it off as satan trying to trick them. Hope to see some of your work soon!
Thanks!
Of course, according to Sye 10, he is forbidden to enter into discussion about his book with infidels. A similar trick is pulled by Quranic scholars who have to be qualified to offer any interpretation or commentary. Quite by chance this means that they don't need to deal with inconvenient questions from the godless - I mean those who know God exists but suppress that knowledge in order to fit in a little extra sinning. One is minded of Dr Johnson's comment that one may criticise a carpenter who makes you a bad table even though you cannot make one yourself; it is not your trade to make tables. Evidence? Wo needs evidence when they KNOW the truth?
Winning a debate, using half truths and lies does not equal a fact, even if you are unaware that you are using half truths and lies. You say you want evidence? Here is the evidence you need to know God exists. Look at the quality of the design of your own body. Your brain is a powerful computer, which can hold hundreds of terabytes of information. Accidental? Your eyes see in colors of many mega pixels, out focus and automatically adjust for light, accidental? You can smell, which means you can detect mere molecules floating in the air ( go ahead make a machine that can do that.) accidental, right? You are completely self replicating, that is a degree of complexity we have not been able to do, but you say it is what...accidental. You say these Christians need to defend their beliefs through evidence, I say you are ignoring all the evidence as it is, why would more evidence sway you? Now let's look at what you are swayed by. You say you have evolution, I say if you have evolution then God did it, I believe that is what the original Hebrew in the Bible indicates, by the way so did Saint Augustine, when he translated the book of Genesis about 400 AD. You cannot add information through natural selection, all mutations we have ever seen are a loss of information, all mutations are harmful. We have never seen macro-evolution, nor is it reflected in the fossil record, yet you assume that micro-evolution = evolution, thought all you are seeing is existing genes being expressed, variation in the species as in the color of a moth. The only evidence that you will accept, are the facts that agree with your theories, do you examine your facts, your sources? No not when it agrees with what you want to think. While I happen to believe an intelligence from outside of space time created the space time and matter we occupy, I have to say, no one knows, if that is the case or NOT. I will also say there are better alternatives to natural selection if God does not exist, reverse entropy and punctuated equilibrium are two prime examples, which actually do fit the observable evidence. The observable evidence does not fit natural selection. That is a real problem you have, and seem completely unaware of it. I am assuming you believe in natural selection and so therefore when you stand up with your "facts" and evidence, that you have no clue there are better ideas out there. The scientific community is so on the hook with the natural selection they do not feel they can bring out better theories, so you do not know there are better ideas that do support Atheism, but you don't know what they are, I am guessing. Natural selection should be a theory in trouble, but because of the on going debate, they can not examine it correctly, it does not fit the observable science.
R Littlefield Make a machine that detects airborne molecules? You've never used a GC-MS have you? The rest is merely argument from incredulity.
Thank you. I knew it wasn’t a good argument but couldn’t formulate why.
I am EXTREMELY grateful to you for this helpful explanation. I'm no philosopher, but I have found myself arguing about this recently.
This happened to me in a conversation. The dude was basically trying to say that his God exists because it needs to based on how he defined it and he wouldn't admit that's what he was doing.
Yup. Modal ontological argument in a nutshell.
1) Define God as existing.
2) get informed that you can’t do that.
3) Deny ever doing that.
ACX, be prepared for IP to come and comment on this video to try and tell you either "your assuming this/that" or that you are somehow "strawmanning" his argument. He uses these excuses all the time. I let everyone know (including him) on the thread of TheMessianicManic's video "Why There's No Proof For God" which was a response to IP's video "Why There Is No Proof For God." Maybe he will make a video response, just be prepared.
I'm assuming you saw his videos responding to the objections to the MOA to right?
Yes, I've seen them. They're kind of bad. And that's being generous.
Okay, thanks. IP will not admit to anything though and will pull things out of his ass if he has too, or go on a spree of ROFL, LOL, or WTF.
Once again, just be prepared for the shit storm that will happen down in the comments later today with IP and his theistic friends.
AntiCitizenX I see that he has an article titled a maximally great field of straw men. Which is bullshit.
Wow this video cleaned out a lot of gunk in my logic. Well done
The key thing here is that all they offer for the existence of a god is arguments. They never present evidence.
In what might be a calm, dispassionate rebuttal of the ontological argument, inspiring confidence in the maturity and depth of understanding of the issues by the speaker, I find my attention instead distracted by the emotional phrases. Alvin Plantinga might tell a student to his face that he is wrong, but he avoids derogation of the student. Wouldn't any of us appreciate that in a teacher? Derogatory epithets raise questions about the intentions and presuppositions of the speaker, even implying a certain desperation to be found and supported as correct. This presentation has some valid academic proposals deserving consideration, but it is tainted with undue emotion. Why? Live long and prosper.
+Tim Trewyn
You seem to be under the naive impression that this is some kind of academic discussion. It's not. Inspiring Philosophy is a bullshit artist. Get over it. I have no patience for blathering buffoons who pretend to be experts in things they obviously don't understand.
Life of Brian
*If you had stepped back and controlled your impulse to heap scorn at people with whom you disagree*
Oh, you mean like this very comment you wrote, which just so happens to be dripping with scorn and contention, but not a single coherent counter-point to speak of?
If only we could all aspire to the philosophical heavyweight of people yourself.
+Life of Brian
Oh look, yet more piss and vinegar. Since you won't dispute a single point of the actual video, I'm just going to assume you agree with the whole thing and have nothing of substance to offer in rebuttal. Thanks for playing.
+Tim Trewyn Why do people like getting so offended these days?
Big Rhonda A question worthy of some time to explore.
AntiCitizenX, I really love your approach to things. Very detailed, explanatory, and clean. Thank you for your videos and I hope you keep them coming. :)
IP's maximally dismal response:
inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/anticitizenxs-maximally-great-field-of-straw-men/#respond
Meh. Virtually nobody actually reads his blog, so he might as well have not even written it. Maybe if enough people think it will be entertaining to watch.
AntiCitizenX
Is there anything to be gained from reading his response?
I do like discussion, that is, hearing both sides of the debate, but I have this gut feeling the response is so asinine that it doesn't even work as to underline his point, as it's questionable whether there even is one. Or whether the MOA is even an argument at all. I think Carneades.org has done a good job of underlining all the problems of it.
He appeals to authority several times, rejects pragmatic epistemologies, and plays constant manipulative word games. In short, more bullshit.
I think it would great if ACX responded towards IP's blog post. Nobody that I know has actually responded back to IP on his blog post, in which IP claims victory then. IP seemed to think ACX strawmanned his points and was pointing out how internet atheists (ACX) are so "immature." Or that this video was somehow "propaganda." *facepalm* This is why IP and other theists piss me off so much.
Some observations:
1) IP never links to my video. He doesn't even so much as give the title.
2) IP never quotes me directly. He just responds to generic timestamps without any attempt to provide context.
3) IP appeals to authority and name drops constantly.
4) IP pretends that he never said things he actually said on record.
5) IP misunderstands basic philosophical principles and terminology ("external world" for one), while constantly complaining that I don't understand philosophy.
6) IP quote mines. A lot. He particularly likes to take my executive summary of his position, treat it like a direct quote, and respond with "I never said that!"
7) IP employs the Road-Runner tactic on several occasions.
8) IP rejects pragmatic measures of epistemology.
9) IP cites references that he apparently has not even read (Quine, for one).
Any other points?
11:04
*"A square cannot exist with only three sides because that would be logically incoherent in any possible world."*
...except in a world where a 'square' was defined as 'a three sided polygon'.
;o)
Thank you for this maximally great video.
Every theist argument compressed:
1-If God exists, then God exists
2-God exists, therefore God exists.
You have become more and more abrasive with your language over the years I noticed. Still, great video!
Mostly because this argument is not honest. You can tell by the way it is worded that someone went through deliberate effort to bury a bad argument in pseudo-intellectual jargon. It makes perfect sense if your goal is to impress dumb people with fancy rhetoric, but no sense at all as a sincere intellectual endeavor. That kind of stuff just really grates on me.
AntiCitizenX
I agree with assalane's asessment but completely sympathize
+AntiCitizenX
I've been thinking for a while that atheist might be better on inventing good arguments for god or gods.
To test this hypothesis, I'll ask you:
"If a theist would give 1 000 000 € to charity if you can produce a better argument for a god or gods, what would you say?
On minor point, my only problem with your video is that in sets of All Possible Worlds & All Impossible Worlds, both sets had same cells (W1, W2 etc.)
Little proof I want to share to people still trying to prove God's existence or lack thereof. (probably not perfect in terms of logic but hopefully the message is still clear)
1. Being natural and being supernatural are a subset of existence. (definition)
2: To be natural, an entity or event must exist or happen in a way that is empirical, undeniable and occurs without impossible interference or intervention. (definition)
3: To be supernatural, an entity must exist in a superior state above natural entities, or an event must happen, such that neither case can be empirically proven to exist or explained using natural laws. (definition)
4: Natural entities/events cannot also be supernatural entities/events and vice versa. (Law of Contradiction)
5: A miracle is an event that cannot be empirically proven or explained. (definition)
6: Therefore, miracles are supernatural events. (3 & 5)
7: God is an entity that can perform miracles. (definition)
8: Therefore, God is a supernatural entity. (6 & 7)
9: Therefore, God cannot be empirically proven to exist. (3 & 8)
10: An apologist is a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. (definition)
11: Apologists typically use the same arguments multiple times in different mediums to persuade their audience. (definition)
12: Insanity is doing the same thing numerous times and expecting different results. (definition)
13: Therefore, that kind of apologetic argumentation is insanity. (11 & 12)
14: Therefore, it is insane to continue to try to prove God's existence using any method known to humanity. (9 & 13)
Spot on! Very well done, sir. Remind me I owe you a steak dinner (should we ever meet).
While St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) believed that God's existence is self-evident, he rejected the idea that it can be deduced from claims about the concept of God. Aquinas argued, plausibly enough, that "not everyone who hears this word 'God' understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body." The idea here is that, since different people have different concepts of God, this argument works, if at all, only to convince those who define the notion of God in the same way.
The problem with this criticism is that the ontological argument can be restated without defining God. To see this, simply delete premise 1 and replace each instance of "God" with "A being than which none greater can be conceived." The conclusion, then, will be that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists - and it is, of course, quite natural to name this being God.
Nevertheless, Aquinas had a second problem with the ontological argument. On Aquinas's view, even if we assume that everyone shares the same concept of God as a being than which none greater can be imagined, "it does not therefore follow that he understands what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally."
One natural interpretation of this somewhat ambiguous passage is that Aquinas is rejecting premise 2 of Anselm's argument on the ground that, while we can rehearse the words "a being than which none greater can be imagined" in our minds, we have no idea of what this sequence of words really means. On this view, God is unlike any other reality known to us; while we can easily understand concepts of finite things, the concept of an infinitely great being dwarfs finite human understanding. We can, of course, try to associate the phrase "a being than which none greater can be imagined" with more familiar finite concepts, but these finite concepts are so far from being an adequate description of God, that it is fair to say they don't help us to get a detailed idea of God.
Nevertheless, the success of the argument doesn't depend on our having a complete understanding of the concept of a being than which none greater can be conceived. Consider, for example, that, while we don't have a complete understanding (whatever this means) of the concept of a natural number than which none larger can be imagined, we understand it well enough to see that there does not exist such a number. No more complete understanding of the concept of a maximally great being than this is required, on Anselm's view, to successfully make the argument. If the concept is coherent, then even a minimal understanding of the concept is sufficient to make the argument.
I never understood how the argument morphs from possible to is. Thanks for the vid!
I dont know if this is gonna be read, but i have to say it. While i do agree that the argument is wrong, i think your explanation of why it is wrong is not correct. I try to picture the argument as if you had a relation on all of the predicatives and argued the relation of goodness ( that may be left undefined for now ) you just need the property of necessity to be in there. Given that, you define god(x) as a relation which is true iff x has all of the good properties (one of them being necessity as i previously stated ). All that ive done so far is given definitions. Now, the only premisse of the argument is that such an entity x s.t. god(x) is possible ( exists in a logically consistent universe ). From that premise, it is obvious that the being truly is necessary ( by its own definition: it is sorta like defining a unicorn as a horned horse that exists ). Thats why i reject such a premisse. I would like to make a counter argument on the following form:
1) there is an entity x s.t. god(x) in a possible world
2) if that is right, then, by definition, it would be a necessary being
3) i can, however, conceive of a consistent world were god doesnt exist ( a world with no humans may do so ). So, god cant be necessary
4) paradox
To me, this argument is a proof that this definition of god as a maximally great being (including necessity) is just another proof that such a god is inconsistent with logic, generating a paradox. I think people have got it on the wrong way. Hope you see this
So, I only watched 2 minutes of this and well, basically... you proved IP's point.
You obviously have no understanding of philosophy (or Atheism for that matter)
I suggest you read David Hume and Michael Ruse (both very great Atheist thinkers) and then watch ALL of the IP videos on ontology. (I mean, really... 20 minutes on 1/5 of the explanation? Not great research there)
So, I only read the first line of your comment, and well, basically, you made zero effort to refute anything but just asserted flat-out that I'm wrong and you're right.
I suggest you actually pay attention to the argument and learn some basic logic. I mean, seriously. Terrible response there.
The comment was satire. He himself was only commenting on part of an argument... I was being absurd to point out absurdity. :)
Andrew Erwin
Oh wow... that was spot on. I get a lot of comments from people who say that exact sort of thing in full seriousness.
I am not really a big fan of the ontological principle in the first place! There are way too many other, more logical arguments (for both sides)...
AntiCitizenX
Excellent video.
I happen to be working on a similar video about the classic arguments for god, but I am attempting to explain these refutations on a junior-high-school level. So, I am attempting to cut through a lot of the silliness that is hidden in the jargon that apologists use.
I've finished the material describing (without the jargon) the analytic-synthetic distinction (I am calling them "truth by definition" vs. "truth by observation".)
However, I've been struggling a little bit how to show the modal ontological argument is nothing more than trying to define god into existence without going into verbiage that would be over the head of a 7th grader.
So, anyway, I was wondering if it would be okay with you if I use excerpts of your material in my video.
I'd love to see your result. I specifically made this one a little heavy on the technical side, but if you can dumb it down for a younger audience that would be fantastic. I hope I've at least given you some more ammunition to work with.
AntiCitizenX
I think I can do it, but it might take a while. Or, I might break it up into playlist. The trouble with these apologists is that they love throwing something faintly plausible sounding that takes ten times as long to refute -- and then they just move on to the next stupidity in their playbook
I'll let you know when I have something online.
My channel is a new one and we've only just started (my tween daughter and I are doing it together). She's a lifelong atheist and wanted to do something once she saw how her friends were being indoctrinated by their families (her best friend is from a Mormon family). So, this channel is what we came up with. We're doing satire Bible studies, but also want to put up some serious material.
AntiCitizenX I found it pretty comprehensive, and I haven't taken any formal philosophy or logic courses. I did have to look up a few terms, but that was it. Even if it was too technical for some, the fact that you kept reinforcing the same fundamental flaw within the first premise alone made it very blatantly obvious on what you were arguing.
"If God exists, then he exists"
That's absolutely right, you have to give them that. It's a functional sentence.
I am not a very smart guy but this was exactly what I was thinking when I heard this argument, defining god into existence by sneaking the conclusion into the definition in the first premise. I doubted myself because they kept going back to since I'm not contradicting myself it has to be true..... The whole of christian apologetics seems to be sneaking in premises, or using the imperfections in language to define god into existence. it's really nice to know that I wasn't misunderstanding the argument. Take my very rare like.
Youre not misunderstanding. Apologists are just liars and manipulators.
Isn't this...the exact same argument you deconstruct in every video you make?
AntiCitizenX - where can I get a Great-o-meter? I *desperately* want one!
I really like your content
Very nice job Anti. Keep it up bud, love the vids.
The funniest part of the whole damn thing is that, even if we accept the entire argument on its face, we get no closer to IP's conception of a Berkeleyan idealist Christian god. We cannot derive that particular is from the ought.
(Unrelated, but something I also found amusing was, in the comments of the original, IP saying he was converted after reading C.S. Lewis.)
3 minutes in, the video still makes no sense. No, when we talk about god we very much are NOT "inevitably talking about ...omnipotence, omniscience...". Literally the textbook stawman.
Also, I find it funny that some athiests claim no god exists but can somehow know exactly the properties of that non-existent god. If you are going to do that at the very least call yourself anti-christian or something.
This reminds me. If you don't know whether something exist or not, the default position is "i don't know", not "it doesn't exist", so a logical athiest can only exist if there is proof god cannot exist. (remember them ontological arguments you hate so much? Also proof things cannot exist very much exist. A lot of computer science is built upon such proofs)
well that is the definition Christians like to use so its pretty relevant that it is logically incoherent and in several different ways too also I dont think you understand what an atheist is usually defined as it just means you lack belief in God I would say Im an agnostic atheist when it comes to the vague claim that a God exists but if they define it the way abrahamic religions do Id say Im a gnostic atheist or maybe a theological non-cognivist
Neither the video nor the comments actually address Anselm's Ontological argument or Godel's Ontological argument which uses a modal logic.
I will state Anselm's argument and Godel's argument using a modal logic.
For a modal logic we need to add the connectives "necessary that" and "possibly that" in addition to the connectives in a predicate logic.
Let □ represent "necessary that" and ◇ represent "possibly that".
Using a predicate logic we can easily prove the "substitution rule" which states:
p V q
q --> r
--------
theterfore, p V r.
Using a truth table(which can be used in a predicate logic) you can show that (~p --> q) V
(p V q) is a tautology. I.E; the two statements are equivalent.
Call this tautology A: (~p --> q) (p V q).
Proof:
(1) p V q Given
(2) q --> r Given
(3) ~p --> q A (1)
(4) ~p --> r Chain Rule (3) and (2)
(5) p V r A (4)
QED.
Becker's Postulates:
(1) □p --> □□p
(2) ◇p --> □◇p
Axiom 1: ◇p
Axiom 2: p --> □p
modal modus ponens:
□(p --> q) --> (□p --> □q)
modal modus tollens:
(p --> q) --> (□~q --> □~p)
(*) ~□p --> ◇~p
(**) ◇p --> ~□~p
necessitation postulate: □p
Law of excluded middle:
□p V ◇~p
Anselm's proof using a modal logic:
To prove : □g
(1) g --> □g Axiom 2
(2) ◇~g --> □◇~g Becker's postulate 2
(3) □g V ◇~g Law of excluded middle
(4) □g V □◇~g Substitution rule (2,3)
(5) ~□g --> ~g law of contrapositive (1)
(6) ◇~g --> ~g by * (5)
(7) □(◇~g --> ~g) necessitation postulate (6)
(8) □◇~g --> □~g modal modus ponens (7)
(9) □g V □~g substitution (4,8)
(10) ◇g --> ~□~g by **
(11) ◇g Axiom 1
(12) ~□~g modus ponens (10,11)
(13) □g Law of detachment (9,12)
The argument is clearly a valid argument, whether it's a sound valid argument I leave to others to debate on the Axioms above.
Godel's Ontological Argument is worth looking in to.
An attempt at Godel's ontological proof.
Pos(F) states property F is positive
Axiom 1 : Pos(F) --> □Pos(F)
Axiom 2: Pos(F) --> ~Pos(~F)
It's clear that Axiom 2 states if F is a positive property, then it's negation is not positive.
Axiom 3: Pos(F) --> [(F --> H) --> Pos(H)]
Axiom 3 just states that positive properties imply other positive properties.
def: A property F is said to be consistent if ◇(∃x)Fx is true and if property F is inconsistent then F --> ~F.
Theorem 1: Pos(F) --> ◇(∃x)Fx
Proof:
Let Pos(F) be true and suppose F is inconsistent, then F --> ~F and by
Axiom 3 Pos(F) --> [(F --> ~F) --> Pos(~F)] --> Pos(~F) is true --> ~Pos(~F) is false
which contradicts Axiom 2. Therefore, the assumption is false and the assertion
Pos(F) --> ◇(∃x)Fx is true.
Here we define what it means to be Godlike.
Let Gx stand for x is Godlike.
def 1:
Gx = df(F)[□Fx Pos(F)] is a tautology. I.E; The two statements are equivalent.
This states that every essential property of a godlike individual x is a positive property and every positive property of x is an essential property.
Note: This definition does not imply that a godlike individual has all positive properties.
It states that a godlike individual has those positive properties which are essential properties.
F ess x reads "F is an essence of x."
Next we define what it means for a property F to be a essence of an individual x.
def 2:
F ess x = df(H)[□Hx (F --> H)] is a tautology.
Next we define what it means for an individual x to exist necessarily.
Let NE(x) read "x necessarily exists".
def 3: NE(x) = df(F)[F ess x --> □(∃y)Fy].
Axiom 4: Pos(G).
Axiom 5: Pos(NE).
Corollary 1 : ◇(∃x)Gx
Proof:
By Axiom 4 Pos(G) and by Theorem 1 Pos(G) --> ◇(∃x)Gx
QED.
Theorem 2: Gx --> G Ess x.
Proof:
Assume Gx is true and let □Hx.
To show: □y(Gy --> Hy)
By (def 1 and Axiom 1) □Hx --> Pos(H) --> □Pos(H).
Referring to the Note above by def 1 we have: □[Pos(H) --> (y)(Gy --> Hy)]
and by modul modus ponens □Pos(H) --> □(y)(Gy --> Hy).
Now let Gx be true and G --> H.
Show □H.
By (Axiom 4) Pos(G) and by (Axiom 3) and (def 1) we have :
Pos(G) --> [G --> H) --> Pos(H)] --> □H.
Therefore Gx --> G Ess x.
Prove: □(∃x)Gx.
Prior to proving the above statement we need two theorems in modal logic.
Theorem A* : □(p --> q) --> [◇p --> ◇q].
Theorem A** : ◇□p --> □p.
Proof of □(∃x)Gx.
If Gx where true, then by (def 1) □Pos(G) and by (Axiom 4) Pos(NE) --> NE(x) is true and
by (Theorem 2) G ess x is true --> [(∃x)Gx --> □(∃x)Gx].
By necessitation axiom above □[(∃y)Fy --> □(∃y)Fy] and Theorem A* -->
◇(∃x)Gx --> ◇□(∃x)Gx and by Corollary 1 ◇(∃x)Gx which by A** --> □(∃x)Gx.
QED
Using an ordinary MacBook computer, Godel's proof was shown to be correct, at least on a mathematical level, using a higher modal logic.
I find it amazing that Godel's argument can be proven automatically in a few seconds or even less on a standard notebook.
The equations all add up.
If there are other things that use similar logic it may be possible to develop computer systems to check each single step of a proof to make certain they are correct.
YES! This is the problem with virtually all of the presuppositional apologetic fans I deal with. I have to try to explain this to them. And I have no education or training in logic or philosophy. Common sense shows this is nonsense!
Congrats to Inspiring Philosophy (who is incredibly difficult to argue with because of the sheer blahblahblablah in his comments and stalwart dishonesty/refusal to admit error) for getting AntiCitizenX to swear! I love this video so much! ;_;
But if I can imagine worlds where God doesn't exist, doesn't that automatically make God a non necessarily existing thing?
It's also possible Emma Watson is my GF in one of these possible worlds, but I don't base my life around that premise. This argument was originally meant to justify theism (and not prove God), but considering my previous point, I don't think it does even that.
I like in IP's response to you he writes -
"...he bases his objection on this presupposition, that analytical claims have no bearing on claims about the external world. The obvious problem is the analytical/synthetic distinction is claimed to speak about what is true about the real world and must therefore be a synthetic proposition...Where is the synthetic evidence of this analytic/synthetic distinction? Well, he doesn’t have any. It is obvious his distinction is analytical, so by his own logic it has no bearing on the real world."
It seems the distinction is a claim about the way language relates to the world and not the actual world itself, so is not synthetically proposed, but that would seem to concede more than enough to the skeptical argument. I think there's more to the story though, Consider the term motionless, defined as stationary with respect to other objects with motion. Now we can define the earth as being stationary with respect to other moving objects because we see the moon and sun moving around us. The statement the earth is motionless can be proposed analytically and would thus be true and must be true of the actual world, but to analyze the claim synthetically we find it is actually false. This does appear to me to be the empirical evidence that would support the distinction. But that's not the only example, most of the failures of our species to understand how things work is the failure of logic in this regard and the success of evidence in the same.
It appears the claim - analytic propositions speak of the actual world not just the terms housed within them - if true would lead to the very contradiction in the earth example above, X exists by analysis but X does not exist by synthesis. If X's exists by logic, but empirical evidence shows X does not exist, but we still consider X to exist in the actual world by way of the initial claim, then said claim is unfalsifiable and does not speak of the actual world, unless of course you consider an unfalsifiable proposition to speak of the actual world, which IP does.
Oh, FFS! Not InsipidPlatitudes, again?
I thought he'd disappeared up the black hole of his own density long ago.
BTW, AntiCitizenX, I can't believe I've been watching your vids this long and have completely forgot to sub you.
Rectified now ;)
in other words, you can't logic things into existence.
"A maximally great being is logically impossible"
If I define a being as perfect in every way, including unbeatable in arm wrestling, defining another being as just as perfect but able to beat my being in arm wrestling means that that being contains a logical contradiction and is therefore not possible.
Therefore, a being that is greater than a maximally great being is impossible, which should mean that "maximally great" does not contain the mentioned contradiction.
That's just the problem, though: it _is_ possible for you to imagine a being which is _to you_ "maximally great". It is then possible for me, having heard your definition, to imagine a different being with the ability to beat yours in an arm wrestling bout - because infinity has no ceiling. It's like the infinite hotel paradox: Imagine a hotel with an infinite amount of rooms - an infinite amount of _occupied_ rooms. Is it possible for you to book a room? Sure - by moving the occupant of room 1 to room 2, the occupant of room 2 to room 3, the occupant of room 3 to room 4 etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. So there is no contradiction in an infinitely strong being losing a fight to a being which is infinitely stronger. "Infinity plus one", if you will. This is because infinity is already a paradox to begin with.
I think words cause the problems here actually. They tend to do so regarding infinities.
It is like the god who cannot create a stone so heavy that he can´t lift it. When you resort to actual numbers instead of convuluted wording, all problems go away. (Yes I dispute that disproof of omnipotence defined as the ability to do any logical possible actions.)
And yes, if instead of defining the being as unbeatable in armwrestling or able to beat anyone else in armwrestling, which creates a bunch of logical paradoxes, you measure the armwrestling ability in numbers, the being would have infinite armwrestling skill. You can then define your being as having twice as much skill as mine have, which is more perfect, so you are right.
There are some instances where maximality converges to a finite number however. If perfection sometimes is the middleground between two extremes, it becomes logically possible. I have some trouble finding examples, but looks is one thing at least. According to any one person, there is a definable "maximal perfection". For example, a woman might find a muscular guy more attractive than a non muscular guy, but if he has biceps that are bigger than mount everest, it is not particularly attractive anymore.
All his talk about squared circles being impossible refuted his proof of the Christian God, who is ever-wrathful and omnibenevolent, ever-merciful and all-just, all loving yet it sends you to hell forever for not loving it in return.
Damn you - I'm working on a video about the ontological argument and you pre-empt me with a more thorough debunking.
Also, what is it with apologists like IP who can't even state the argument in its actual form? Plantinga's presentation of it hides the question begging more skilfully (IMO).
I, too, am making a comment
Ok
Feel free to make it! What is it about?
I think that WAS the comment. 😕
have a comment as payment for the lolz 👌🏻have a chilled weekend
wait thats illegal
You should debate William Lame Creed, some day, you would destroy him for sure.
"Congratulations dipshit." I lost my shit at that one. Well done sir.
Every time I hear someone using this argument, they are Christians. When I ask them if they are Christians & they answer in the affirmative I then say "why are you wasting time with this argument? Just present evidence for the Bible story of Christ's resurrection".
So far, they have not presented any evidence for the Bible story of Christ's resurrection... they just try to use the Bible story as the evidence for the story.
This video needs a Cinemasins intro.
Just saying.
P1 Jesus is Gay
----------------------------------------------------
C1 If Jesus is Gay, then Jesus is Gay.
+magget16 Don't ask for something relevant to this video. I'm feeling to lazy atm for that.
I love these. Philosophy for Dummies.
....it's. ..uh...why I watch.
;-)
From your post, we can see how far in you got before posting.
Me, about the same.
But isn't this what teaching about science should be? Question everything, the method, the premise, the analysis, the selection process etc. etc.
Perhaps it was my (excellent) undergraduate training.
But this is the philosophy of science.
Trust me. Sub this channel if you like reality.
MMaximuSS1975 Effort involved, I hope that value gained.
"If the crew from 'Sliders' ould travel to a parallel Earth where God exists, then God must exist in ALL parallel Earths!" That's the argument. Seriously. That's it.
Hey, if you define squares as "A polygon in which all of its internal angles are right angles", you CAN have 3 and 5 sided squares.
You lost at non sequitur.
The nature of God is defined as omnipresent or existing everywhere. i.e. all possible worlds.
The only part of OA you can dispute is premise #1 Can God exist?
The argument is logically sound from this point on.
as for possible worlds, consider the impact this concept has on the multiverse hypothesis where the thinking is that anything that can happen will happen. OA changes the question from does God exist to Can God exist.
*The nature of God is defined as omnipresent or existing everywhere. i.e. all possible worlds.*
I don't think you understand what a possible world is.
*The only part of OA you can dispute is premise #1 Can God exist? The argument is logically sound from this point on.*
1) I own a home in California
2) California is a state in America
3) Therefore, I own a home in EVERY state in America.
If you can't spot the flaw in this argument, then you don't understand the MOA.
*as for possible worlds, consider the impact this concept has on the multiverse hypothesis*
That's not how logically possible worlds work.
AntiCitizenX That's exactly the argument that failed. To accurately equate the argument would have to be more like this
1. I am the owner of all homes in America
2. There are homes in California
3. California is in America
4. I own all homes in California
Your argument presents yourself with finite ownership. Maximally Great is not finite. The home ownership analogy is backwards.
I understand logically possible. As OA goes, these worlds are not actual but merely possible. All possible worlds have a commonality, namely being possible.
It's not really that difficult.
Ironically, the multiverse hypothesis suggests that all possible worlds (or universes) are in fact actual. This gives even more bite to the OA.
The entire argument is decided by a single premise, whether or not God is possible. If a maximally great being, or God, is possible then God exists by necessity of logic in this actual world.
The argument cannot address the soundness of the starting premise, but if true, the argument is sound.
*1. I am the owner of all homes in America*
Not only does this statement beg the question, it is also not stated as a formal premise in the MOA.
*Your argument presents yourself with finite ownership.*
So does the MOA.
*All possible worlds have a commonality, namely being possible.*
You then went on to claim that omnipresence implies existence in all of those worlds, which only confuses the meaning of those terms.
*Ironically, the multiverse hypothesis suggests that all possible worlds (or universes) are in fact actual.*
It does nothing of the sort. Again, you don't know what a "possible world" is, so let me explain:
A possible world is a SELF CONSISTENT DESCRIPTION of some state of affairs. I can imagine a possible world where the multiverse contains nothing like our current universe.
*The argument cannot address the soundness of the starting premise, but if true, the argument is sound.*
What part of "some does not imply all" do you not understand? I am well-aware of what all that maximally-great nonsense means. But you still have to state it as a formal premise in order to call the argument "sound," genius.
+AntiCitizenX
The OA begins with
1. A maximally great being exists.
This premise is often rephrased "IF" a maximally great being exists.
There is no way you can say a premise of "i own a home in California" can be of any use in understanding the OA. Apples to oranges.
To understand the argument you have to understand the concept of maximally great. Such a being would be as great as can be imagined and have to the greatest extent imaginable all the attributes of greatness. The greatest possible being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds because to not do so would leave room for a greater being that does. A maximally great being DOES necessarily exist in ALL possible worlds.
This is the Christian concept of God. The uncaused cause which is demanded by logic. The eternally existent creator of all that is. The reason that existence is rather than nothing. Not finite.
A possible world is a concept. A conceptual world, or universe, that is possible. Worlds that are self-contradicting are not possible. If a maximally great being exists, the originating premise, then a world in which this being does not exist is NOT possible. You can imagine it but so what? Contradictory worlds aren't on the list. I have no idea what you're going on about, it's not so difficult.
The multiverse hypothesis appeals to plenitude thinking where everything that can possibly happen will happen. This hypothesis is used to defend highly improbable events in evolution and cosmology and says that these possible universes actually exist. Not sure what you're objecting to here either.
You need to drop the house in California thing, it's preventing you from understanding OA and where this video really went off the rails. Just a train wreck from there.
@jon doe...
This is dealt with in the rest of the video, and in the comments already in this comment thread.
It seems you missed AntiCitnzenX clarifying possible worlds for you:
*A possible world is a SELF CONSISTENT DESCRIPTION of some state of affairs*
MGB is an attempt to define something as extant - literally by definition. Language is not reality.
Perhaps one way of putting it: Existence isn't actually a property but rather the instantiation of a thing's properties. "Greatness" is a value judgement.
Ad hominem kills any arguments that follows it. In other words, don't use logical fallacies to point out other peoples' logical fallacies.
Mitchell Sheppard " Ad hominem kills any arguments that follows it."
That's a contradiction. If "arguments follow" it is no longer an ad hominem fallacy. That would mean you used *nothing* *but* insults and attempts at discrediting the person.
Mitchell Sheppard
Don't lecture me on fallacies by using fallacies.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
I don't think that saying the use of fallacies is a problem counts as begging the question.
Mitchell Sheppard
*I don't think that saying the use of fallacies is a problem counts as begging the question.*
It is when that's literally all you have to say.
Being problematic to a logical argument is the definition of a logical fallacy. The only situation in which I'm begging the question is if ad hominem isn't a logical fallacy. It is though, so you are wrong.
AntiCitizenX is Great
Their argument did a GREAT job of convincing me! So much “If God exists...”, followed by gibberish. They convinced me “Therefore, God does NOT exist.”
You have some of the most useful, engaging, and entertaining content I have seen out of all atheist youtubers. Keep it up this stuff is great! You should make some guides to forming an argument and diagnosing and countering others arguments.
I have always felt that people who have to be rude about the way they argue aren't sure of what they're saying
I have always felt that people who complain about rudeness have nothing specific in this video to dispute, but don't want to admit they might be wrong, either.
+AntiCitizenX lmao alright
+UnratedAwesomeness destroyed lol. Love seeing anticitizenX respond to newer comments
No, but if someone argued with him about it he could rely on facts if he knew his theory was correct
And I wouldn't really say I got owned 😂 I'm obviously not as smart or studied as either parties, but I've watched both videos and can easily within a moment who can be calm in their debate and who needs to act like their better than the other.
I'm assuming this relates to some psychological phenomena because it seems that just about all atheists have this same problem where they like to make fun of the other debater. I'm not saying you're not allowed to, but it's just interesting. It reminds me of when a big strong guy gets into an argument with a scientist and takes his frustrations out using his physical strength. Perhaps you can tell me that the frustration comes from the other party being "so stupid it's unbearable" but I highly doubt that. Anyway, tootaloo
Pretty terrible video. It's absolutely fascinating how internet atheists tend to think they can just disprove stuff by ACTUAL philosophers this easily, that professional atheists philosophers can't.
Right, if this guy is so smart, why isn't he publishing articles. Arrogant as always.
@@roneddy He is a practicing scientist, with a PhD in philosophy. He profession is not philosophy.
But, it hasn't gone unnoticed, that neither you, nor Singah NDLOVU has actually responded to the actual arguments AntiCitizenX made. All you and Singah have is nothing but ad hominem.
Nicely done sirs, nicely done.
@@pandstar I am sure Alvin Plantiga is shaking in his boots because of this video.
@@roneddy You do know that Plantinga himself admitted the the modal ontological argument did not provide evidence for the existence of a god, right?
Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm’s argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (Plantinga 1974)
And let me add, that Plantinga's modal argument does not even provide a rational argument, because it is not rational to accept its central premise.
It is fallacious.
So here is how to destroy the MOA:
1) Deny logic.
2) Reduce modal logic to "blah blah blah".
3) Act incredulous to axiom S5.
4) Deny that someone making a proof can define terms how they want.
5) Assume moral nihlism.
And assume positivism and materialism the whole way. There, the argument is refuted.
I can honestly say that you are a living embodiment of everything I specifically railed against in this exact video. I truly cannot tell if your comment is just pure ignorance, or rampant dishonesty.
1) No one "denied" logic dumbass. I did, however, explain the scope logic as well as its limitations.
2) No, I reduced the ontological argument to "blah blah blah." There is a difference. And I did so for very specific reasons. Again, are you lying, or just that stupid?
3) No one denied axiom S5. It was not even mentioned in this video. It is also irrelevant to the fundamental flaws of the MOA. I highly doubt you even know what S5 is or means.
4) I specifically said "you can define your terms however you want." You lying sack of shit.
5) Morality did not even come up in this video. Again, you lying sack of shit.
6) Materialism is irrelevant to this video. Positivism has some relevance from the analytic/synthetic distinction, though that is not strictly a positivist concept, nor is it automatically "positivism" to assert it. Nor is it wrong.
Thank you for proving all of my points once again. You are either too stupid or too dishonest to be treated with respect. Piss off, dipshit.
***** 10) Quote Alvin Plantinga conceding that the MOA doesn't establish the existence of God.
*1) No one "denied" logic dumbass. I did, however, explain the scope logic as well as its limitations.*
If you think that true premises could lead to a false conclusion by the rules of logic, then yes, that is denying logic. If it isn't denying logic I don't know what is. If you don't, then what's the point of saying what you said? You spent a lot of time attacking the argument itself, so there is absolutely no reason for you to bring up what you did unless you believe the former.
*2) No, I reduced the ontological argument to "blah blah blah." There is a difference. And I did so for very specific reasons. Again, are you lying, or just that stupid?*
No, look at the video again. I was referencing 3:53.
"1. X is possible.
2. Blah blah blah...
3. Therefore, X is so."
If 2 was not meant to be pejorative you could have said something else, like "fill in the blank". If you didn't mean to be pejorative to the rest of IP's argument (modal logic), then that's fine. I'm willing to admit I misinterpreted what you said. But don't try to change your words.
*3) No one denied axiom S5. It was not even mentioned in this video. It is also irrelevant to the fundamental flaws of the MOA. I highly doubt you even know what S5 is or means.*
Considering that you were incredulous towards how "God is possible" could mean "God exists", and the reason why that is so is axiom S5, then yes, it is fair for me to say that you were incredulous to axiom S5.
*4) I specifically said "you can define your terms however you want." You lying sack of shit.*
Well then why were you spending so long mocking the argument because of the definitions used? In IP's original video the purpose of talking about the definition of God was to illustrate how God is necessary if He is possible, and not just to say "I defined God as necessary, hahaha I win", as you seemed to represent his argument.
*5) Morality did not even come up in this video. Again, you lying sack of shit.*
I quote from 14:10-
"Greatness and betterness are not objectively quantifiable things. These are called value judgements."
I am open to correction if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but don't pretend you didn't say something that you did once I call you out on it.
*6) Materialism is irrelevant to this video.*
From 8:52:
"It does not matter how God is "defined". Mere definitions alone to not magically translate into physical presence in the real world. Any idiot can tell you this."
You seem to be implying that by saying "God exists" we are saying He is physical. Again, it's okay if you admit you made a mistake, or if I misinterpreted what you said, but don't try to pretend you didn't say something once I call you out on it.
*Positivism has some relevance from the analytic/synthetic distinction, though that is not strictly a positivist concept, nor is it automatically "positivism" to assert it. Nor is it wrong.*
Perhaps a better word (that you use) is pragmatism. If you are going to assume pragmatism then you should have good reasons for us to accept it... I watched your vid on pragmatism and the arguments for it were pretty terrible. The best argument I remember for pragmatism as applying universally (the only way you could then apply it to theistic arguments) is that if some true proposition doesn't have an empirical test that proves it true then you don't care. If you want to correct me and bring up a better argument for pragmatism that's fine, but come on. If those are the best arguments you have for pragmatism then forgive us for criticizing you for assuming it to critique an argument for the existence of God.
Sam Butler 11) Read the full quote, where Plantinga says that it still makes it more rational to believe that God exists since it is rational to believe the premises.
Christopher Johnson "If you think that true premises could lead to a false conclusion by the rules of logic, then yes, that is denying logic."
He never said anything like that. He said that you can't deduce the existence of some entity via pure logic, because existence, by definition, generates some possible empirical (ie expieriential) expectation. If you have some existent thing which is literally impossible to experience, then your thing is indistinguishable from nothing, and via Leibniz' Law identical to nothing.
"Considering that you were incredulous towards how "God is possible" could mean "God exists", and the reason why that is so is axiom S5, then yes, it is fair for me to say that you were incredulous to axiom S5."
That's because it hadn't been explained at that point that God is defined as a 'necessary being', whatever that means. No different than saying 'if Zeus exists in some possible world, then Zeus exists in all possible worlds'. S5 only applies to possibly necessary statements, so there's no reason to appeal to S5 until the claim is made that some statement is necessary.
"You seem to be implying that by saying "God exists" we are saying He is physical."
He's just saying that if he exists, then, as mentioned earlier, he generates some experiential expectation. Otherwise he's just indistinguishable from nothing.
Logical systems that have contradictions are easy to produce. It's just that such systems aren't very useful as often the contradiction can be used to construct a logically valid deduction for any claim, thus making the whole system trivial. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion.
This is the strangest CinemaSins video I've ever watched.
Hold on... If there was a possible world where god doesn't exist... how would they explain that?
This guys god “created” very imperfect humans. We can then say his god is very imperfect.
'God is an entity that exists, therefore God exists' excellent reasoning!
Excelent! The best video refuting this "argument"!
So, to answer your "wooooah WhaT?!?!?! wHerE dA hElL diD thAT coME fROm?!?!?!" at 7:19.
(1) Suppose (for discharge) that at some possible world w1, G is the case.
(2) Necessarily, if G is the case, then G is necessarily the case. (Trivial ~ definition of G)
(3) Hence, at w1, if G is the case, then G is necessarily the case.
(4) So, at w1, G is necessarily the case. (2,3)
(5) If a proposition is possibly necessarily the case, then it is actually necessarily the case. (theorem of modal logic K + B)
(6) So, G is actually necessarily the case. (4,5, modus ponens)
(7) Conclusion: if G is possibly the case, then G is necessarily the case (1,6)
Note that (2) is not "defining G to be true". It isn't saying "G is necessarily the case, and this is true because it is true by definition". it's saying "granted that God exists, it follows that God necessarily exists". ~~That~~ is certainly trivially true because of the definition of God (more specifically, an MGB). But that's entirely separate from the act of "defining something into existence". That's like saying that [](P -> P) defines pistachios into existence, where P means "pistachios exist". Does saying "if pistachios exist, then pistachios exist" define pistachios into existence? Then neither does "if God exists, then God exists necessarily". The word "exists" both in the pistachio conditional and in the God conditional doesn't have any actual sort of ontological import by being in the antecedent. These sentences are just describing a logical consequence lol.
If you're still skeptical about this, I recommend you ask just about any atheist logician who has looked into the modal ontological argument, and they will essentially confirm what I just said.
Your best bet is to just deny that systems like S5 are appropriate for modal metaphysics (which, I think, is rather dubious), or say that there is no reason to think that it is possible that God exists (other than reasons for God existing in general) that isn't also a reason to think that it is possible that God does not exist (in which case, you can run a reverse MOA), i.e. there is no good symmetry breaker. But you did not do that, the video was just a really cringey misunderstanding of modal logic ~~ perhaps even just basic propositional logic.
So much love for the Great-O-Meter.
Great synopsis and breakdown of that argument. Thanks for posting this.
Well done. I love the ontological argument because every time I hear it I laugh.
19:03
1) It is possible I have a lot of money on my bank account.
2) If it is possible that my large bank account exists, then large bank accounts must exist on other accounts.
3) If large bank accounts exist on some accounts, then they exist on every possible account.
4) If large bank accounts can exist on every account, then they actually exist on my account.
5) therefore, I have a large account on my account.
6) my large bank account exists.
7) ...never mind, still broke, just checked.
This is one of the most satisfying vids I've watched in a very long time.