Ontological Argument for God / Pizza (William Lane Craig Edition)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 тра 2019
- The Modal Ontological Argument for God has been revised by William Lane Craig to try to address the classical rebuttals against it... it's new, but is it improved?
The Ontological Argument
• The Ontological Argument
Is the Ontological Argument Sound? (Interview with Dr. Ben Arbour)
• Is the Ontological Arg...
Answering Anselm's Ontological Argument Playlist
• Ontological Argument
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.buymeacoffee.com/paulogia
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - Наука та технологія
I think the greatest flaw of the argument is that it requires "greatness" to be an objective property, even though it is a subjective evaluation.
This too haha.
True. WLC throws words in like "perfect" w/o ever addressing what that word actually means. Can anyone actually define their perfect pizza?
@@XiagraBalls I can. The perfect pizza is exactly what you want to eat at every bite, is never too hot or cold, is perfect nutritionally for whatever your body needs, goes with whatever you are drinking and leaves no waste.
It is just as real as the perfect God.
And of course, it is greater if it actually exists and appears in your hand whenever you want it.
*holds out hand*
*no pizza appears*
Ontological argument failure.
I mean, you could eschew the "greatness" criteria entirely because it's only tangential to the argument, it's smoke and mirrors to mask the true nature of it. It rests on this platonic assumption that our philosophical fabrications about reality are actually real and not just wordgames, and that there MUST be real objects representing them.
You could replace the maximally great being with the maximally comfortable chair, and the argument wouldn't change, it assumes that greatness or comfortableness are metaphysical properties of reality instead of descriptions of human concepts about reality, and then demands that there's real objects that represent the pinnacle of those properties that must exist to fit the criteria of those categories. It's a ridiculous wordgame.
I now kind of wish that the argument worked. I'd really like a maximally great pizza that replenishes itself.
Yeah. Every slice of a maximally great pizza would perfectly fit the tastes of the person eating it at the time - and, as you say, continuously replenish itself.
Every slice would be different (though they'd all be perfect), even for the same person, so we'd never get tired of eating it.
It would also be perfectly healthy, providing every nutrient human beings needed in order to thrive (Yeah, that's just an ordinary pizza, huh? But wait for it...), but no one would get fat eating it.
Finally, a maximally great pizza would fix at least _one_ of God's screw-ups by being impossible to choke to death while eating it.
Hmm,... I'm getting hungry just _thinking_ about it. :)
And it would end world hunger so that we could use money in food relief to explore the universe
let's worship pizza. I'm so there :)
But which pizza is the correct one to worship, and which toppings are evil? Is there some sort of ancient manuscript that will illuminate us as to the One True Pizza?!
1) A maximally great being (MGB) could create a maximally great pizza (MGP).
2) A possible world in which a maximally great pizza exists is greater than one in which it does not exist.
3) An MGB that creates an MGP is greater than a being that does not create an MGP.
4) An MGB that creates an MGP in every possible world is greater than a being that does not create an MGP in every possible world.
5) We are living in a possible world.
6) There is no maximally great pizza.
7) Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.
Honestly, most apologetics arguments are either illogical or circular reason. A god exists because a god must exists therefore god exists. And it just happens to be the god I was raised to believe in!
And somehow the more their beliefs are debunked the more true they must be because faith!!
Your statement just went in a circle. Did you notice or are you use to that?
@@paulglover6525 It's kinda the point...
@Anonymous Person Circular reasoning with a dash of special pleading. It basically surmount as the first cause argument, where the first cause must be a god and this god must be uncaused because special pleading.
@Anonymous Person You're pleading god must be uncaused despite having no reason to do so just because you want to stop the eternal regress otherwise it would cause. You're also pleading that even if we had reasons to accept a first cause, it must be a theistic god, instead of a simple event, like a snowflake causing an avalanche. The first cause have no reason to be a god.
For all we know the first cause could be a simple quantic bleep, with no need for any property you gave a god, but you're pleading it must have those properties because you want a god to exist. God exists because it have to exist therefore god exists, it's circular.
"Thus, the first actualizer cannot have any potential for existence" do you realize this sentence just means god have no potential to exist therefore it doesn't exist? The argument is so flawed that it affirms god doesn't exist, therefore it exists?
I haven't heard the reverse argument before.
Nice.
Yes, I enjoyed that, too.
My objection (and admittedly, I know _nothing_ about philosophy) was about two things right from the start.
First, what _is_ a "great" being? What does "great" even _mean_ when applied to "beings"? That's extremely vague. Is a giraffe "greater" than me because it's taller? Is an elephant "greater" than me because it weighs more? If one being weighs the most, but another being is the tallest, which is the "greater" being?
And second, I object to the premise that a maximally great being is possible, because they haven't demonstrated that it's true. No, I can't demonstrate that it _isn't_ possible (depending on their definition of "great"), but that doesn't mean that it _is._ The fact is, I simply don't know if it's possible or not.
(For another example, is it possible that a mind can exist without a brain? Well, every mind we know anything about is intimately associated with a brain, so it seems unlikely. However, that doesn't mean that a mind _can't_ exist without a brain... somewhere, somehow. But I'm not going to agree that it's possible without good evidence that it _is_ possible. Why would I just _assume_ that it's possible?)
So, for both reasons, this argument fails for me right from the start.
Nor had I. It’s a great gotcha.
@@tawdryhepburn4686 The "true" (reverse)-Ontological argument is also as good of an argument for Anti-Agnostic Atheism as the out-dated Ontological Argument is for Anti-Agnostic Theism.
Yeah - seems like checkmate, but I’ll hold that loosely as to not be a dick about it.
Bill Garthright - I’ve had these exact thoughts. It’s amazing how we can so easily smuggle our biases into logical thinking and for it to “work” until folks with more actual logic knowledge and experience can parse things out.
Just sounds like a long-winded dishonest way of saying "I imagine a god therefore it is real."
Not a good argument in my opinion at all.
But that's Anselm's version! This is the new and -improved- obscurified version!
Or, it is like saying, "My god is my ego, therefore it exists."
That's basically Descartes' version.
Snuffy Wuffykiss That is precisely what it is. That than which nothing greater can be thought. Even my mediæval philosophy prof. Father Synan did not think much of it.
When you dont understand it, you must read the actual authors who talk about the topic.
The question, do you believe in god? has three correct answers.
1. As a concept
2. Which god.
3. No
I would have to agree. Nicely said. So god as a concept would be just a subjective poetic god perhaps, not an objective literal god. And number 2 has to be explained and showed demonstrable evidence for. The 3rd is no, correct?
@@Joethebro101
I might allow a fourth correct answer, which would be, Possibly, but I would just be sitting on the fence.
@@Rog5446 You might be correct with only the first 3. Matt Dillahunty has a point that you have to show something is possible before you can even say it's possible. Not sure on this. I mean if we say "As far as we know it's possible", maybe it's possible. Ok, back to my coffee.😎
4. Fuck No.
@@Rog5446 If you are going to sit on a fence, be sure its a maximally great fence, which must exist in all possible worlds!
Anyway, I came up with something very similar to the ontological argument for a maximally great pizza when I was about five.
But I quickly realized I could not argue or reason the pizza into existence.
When I first heard the ontological argument in my 20's my immediate reaction was "Oh! Like a toddler would think!"
4:20 Well, "morally perfect" rules out Biblegod existence right off the bat. ;-D
"Amen"! 😏
Why would a immortal being follow the same moral standards as mortals? (Not arguing in favor of everything in the Bible being good, just thinking aloud really here).
For an immortal being, causing pain for a moment, even if that moment is a human lifetime, eventually that action would become such a brief moment of time in the grand scheme of eternity as to have basically never happened at all.
Lienda Balla So how does a god acount for people who have never even heard of a god or gods before, and had died? Is that fair by your god's standards?
How about children getting raped, and even getting killed after being raped? It hasn't happened to me, and other people, is that considered good by your god's standards?
So how is your god "morally perfect"? By his standards where it's okay for some children to be raped? Well there goes my reasons to not respect him.
The Night Watcher Well some people can't conceive why evil things are okay (like rape and murder). If god can conceive why evil things are okay, do we just believe him without knowing the reason why?
It also rules out any God that is also "maximally" powerful, since that God is allowing other beings to suffer while having the power to help them. No one's idea of a maximally moral God can include child cancer and no one's idea of a maximally powerul god can include a being that can't prevent child cancer.
We can establish that just because we can imagine maximal stuff it doesn't mean it has to actually exist. Go figure.
The mere fact that Bertrand Russell laughed when he was asked about the OA tells you everything you need to know.
Proving that maximally great unicorns exist in the real world !!!
There exists a maximally great strip club in some possible world where anyone can find ecstasy forever. Save your dollar bills.
"Maximally great unicorns!" That's funny!
Define maximally great unicorn then we'll talk.
I dislike the use of unicorns as mythical creatures. Not only is a unicorn not impossible, but unicorns actually exist.
@@goldenalt3166 Depending on how you're interpreting the true identity; it could be interpreted as being in reference to a Rhinoceros, or it could be (through linguistic artifacts) interpreted as an Aurochs (an extinct undulate species, related to cattle).
I was just a recent apostate. And even back then, when I was still passionate about apologetics, the ontological argument is the argument I just couldn't defend--it begs itself.
This all sounds very much like "God exists, because it's part of his definition that He is a being that exists"
Exactly.
This talk of pizza has made me think, that somewhere in this universe, the maximally greatest pizza exists, and I will never get a chance to taste a slice. Unlike a god, pizza has been demonstrated to exist.
The maximally greatest pizza would always be available to everybody.
@@tarmairon431 Instead of handing out rings you should've used your magic and orc workforce to perfect pizza crafting. Damn you Sauron.
@@tarmairon431 so, are you saying that the maximally great pizza is the one you have right now?
@@angela_merkeI Oh damn! You are right pizza truely is irresistable, and even dwarves and elves would have been corrupted by the One Pizza.
@@tarmairon431wouldn’t that be perfection in the availability rather than in the pizza itself?
If a god existed he would make Pokémon real. Since Pokémon aren't real, no god exists. The end.
Great reversal.... superb! 👏👏👏
idiot
This is actually the worst argument ever. All words not evidence. Define god into existence. These philosophers just wasted their time and ours.
Eng 613 - Well said. How to prove the existence of a maximally perfect being = Step 1 - Assume existence. Step 2 - done. It doesn't get much simpler than that!
Yes it's like saying since it's theoretically possible that life on other planets exist, then Mr.Spock DEFINITELY exists.
@@nickchevance9401 "Step 3 - Profit!"
It definitely has its merits if you consider it from the realism perspective that "God" is actually a real thing because concepts are real simply because we thought of them. For instance, the mathematical realism concept that numbers are real. "God" exists, because we created it. We made God a real thing that has real influence in the world, but Anslem took it too far in saying that "if the being only exists in the mind, then an even greater being exists in both the mind _and_ reality."
@@tubian323
We should never forget step 3. It's *always* about the money.
I for one am shocked that Billy Craig would exaggerate the support for the Ontological argument in the philosophical community. He has been so honest and willing to admit his failings in the past. ;)
Seriously, he is one of the most smug and dishonest apologists I have had the *displeasure* of encountering.
Who are the top 3?
@@BigFatWedge Oh easy.
1. Billy Craig.
2. Frank Turek.
3. Darth Dawkins.
In that order, but I do rank this off a scale of smugness/arrogance/dishonesty against intelligence and education.
Billy is far from the most smug or arrogant of this group, but he does hold the highest educational standard out of all of them, so he is most likely aware of how easily his arguments are dismissed and the fallacious reasoning behind them, but chooses to ignore this so he can make more $$$, which puts him top of the list.
Darth Dawkins is the most smug and arrogant out of them, but is borderline special needs, so ranks lower. Turek is a happy medium of lack of intelligence and dishonesty.
As Hitchens would say...ok I’ll give you your god, but you still have your work ahead of you. Now you have to prove he intervenes, answers prayers and generally gives a damn about you.
That’s paraphrased of course, but you have the general idea
I've always been amused by the notion that, in a universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars and planets, WE are his special pets for whom he created the whole thing. [And that is dealing only with the part of the universe we can see. Most cosmologists think it is probable the universe continues many times further than we can see.]
I like novels and a recent one I found actually had a fun concept for Earth's god, where it's a composite being of risen people, so because people from all places and opinions have risen then this god can't make up its mind on anything so it never does anything
UnknownDane Have you ever watched a Cartoon series called Ben 10. He possesses a nigh omnipotent alien named Alien X who some members of his species can't agree on doing anything since they posses two consciousness which can't agree on what action to take as they are locked in philosophical arguments.
Lets start from beginning
Would a all knowing and perfect being , create a plant and then ban humans to eats its fruits , when this perfect being clearly knows that humans wont follow that ban and then punish humans for something this perfect all knowing being knew would happen ? ... dont seem perfect to me , more like a psychopath .
@@condorboss3339 Couldn't the believer/creationist say that god created all those stars and planets, and sent his son to all those planets to save those beings from sin? I wouldn't put it past them to say such a claim.
0:07
Man that one pisses me off, ugh. 1,000,000*0 is still 0
not 0
The argument leaps from "being possible" to "existing in a possible world" to "existing in every possible world" to "existing in the actual world." It leaps from imagination to reality without any real justification for doing so. It is sophistry.
Love ya Paul, you deserve more than 28k subs. Maybeee 29k lol I kid, at least 100k!
At least
spread the word!
@@Paulogia shared :3
Isn’t saying “the evidence/arguments for god are cumulative”, just another way of saying we throw shit at the wall until we find something that sticks?
No, because in this scenario, nothing even sticks, the hypothetical atheist is simply buried drowned in the endless waves of fallen tomato sauce and spaghetti until they succumb to the gospel of the noodly creator in what's basically a long-form Gish Gallop, the apologist's favorite weapon against disagreement.
"greatness" is a loosely defined word, not something to build an argument on. Like "wellness", or "liberal", everyone has a different opinion of what that is.
12:30 It is amazing how often apologists argue that their argument for God should include a special exception. If you need a special exception for your argument to be valid, it is *NOT* valid.
Apologetics = Intellectual gymnastics + Charisma + Word plays
Now I'm sad that the maximally great pizza doesn't exist. If God were real I'd have one if he were morally perfect. Mmmmmm pizza.
The same lack of faith that prevents you from believing in the maximally great god prevents you from appreciating the maximally great pizzas that have been offered to you.
@@gileswardle3049 Ah but I used to believe and I still had no maximally great pizza. So you are wrong. :(
Were you willing to believe that the pizza you were offered was maximally great without any supporting evidence and in the face of all evidence to the contrary, @@RonPaulOrElse?
@@gileswardle3049 Of course. That's what faith is. But after no pizza, I grew a brain. Still no pizza.
All hail the god PIZZA!
The best argument for a god would be: Look! Here he/she/it is! (While showing that god to exist).
For example, to prove my dog exists, I would simply produce my dog, not do mental gymnastics trying to explain why my dog should or might exist.
So there you go, theists: just show is your god and we will believe. It really is that simple.
Not everything that exists needs to be shown to confirm therefore that it exists…for example, numbers, moral judgements, aesthetic judgements.
One, this argument is easily countered by the problem of evil.
Two, I'm pretty sure the "maximally great pizza" is an SCP.
"Plug the holes in each other's"😂 ... don't mind my immaturity
Haha I caught that too XD
"If a MGB exists in one possible world, it must exist in all possible worlds."
This part of the argument makes no sense to me. There's no logical reason why this would be true.
And that is the problem with the argument WLC tries to make.
The argument defines MGB as necessary. You can try to argue that necessity is not a property of a thing at all, but it's easier to just point out that defining MGB as necessary renders the whole "possible worlds" framing a sham.
Given that definition, the first premise becomes "It is possible that a being which, if it is possible that it exists, actually exists, exists." If you can parse the language, that's a cut and dry question-begging fallacy.
_"... MGB ..."_
My dad rode around in a red MGB while wearing leather flying helmet and a white scarf.
You can't fly.
A stone can't fly.
You are a stone.
Then does it follow that since a fly can be stoned, you are a fly?
@@Buzzcook Some stoners are referred to as being Fly
Prove that in the dead sea fish exist! Believe me!
Blubbers are possible to exist
(Blubbers definition: Blubbers are fish that exist in any water)
Blubbers exist in a possible lake
Blubbers exist in all lakes (because they exist, by definition, in any water)
Blubbers exist in the dead sea
Fish exist in the dead sea (because they are, by definition, fish)
This is just a great argument. Now I can even prove that there are fish in my sink, my toilet and any small puddle and everyone has to believe me!
i can fly no problem. it's the sudden stop that's the problem.
@@youtubecommenter2136 Silly. You would have to make the claim the fish have the attribute of aseity. Also using physical analogies like that can just be proven to be false by obelservstion
These people who are maximally wrong continue to hold respected positions in this society.
excellent video. As always you present your argument in a clear and easy to understand wzy.
Thanks for making the ontological argument clear for me. Wacht it 3 times already, just to be sure I did not miss anything.
_Circular..._ that argument's a _wreath!_ The conclusion is in _every premise!_
Fucking love this comment.
Which is why anyone who makes it is fractally wrong automatically.
you could call it a web of lies.
Any philosopher who defends the ontological argument should immediately lose their philosophy degree.
I've been waiting since last year! Thank you so much!
The maximally great pizza is a perfect example of attempting to define something into existence
Paul, you continue to grow in the quality of your videos. I believe this is your best yet - well researched and presented. Please keep up the good work!
BTW, a maximally great pizza would include a slice with gluten-free crust available in every pizza joint. Since such a slice doesn't exist everywhere, .... and so on. Too bad as I miss pizza.
Thanks for the video and sharing it with us. Your efforts are appreciated.
When I first encountered Anselm's argument in a Philosophy of Religion class back in college, it sounded suss to me, but none of the rebuttals presented at the time seemed to get at the core of what was wrong with it (or maybe I just didn't understand). You've thoroughly deconstructed it here for me! Thank you for that!!
"Can God microwave a burrito that's so hot that even he can't eat it?" ..philosopher Homer Simpson.
"Can I imagine I'm the smartest person on earth? Yes. So it must be true." ...Donald Trump.
The real question is ,if a maximally good god existed .......would god microwave donald trump?
Fatma Ramadan No. Microwaving people is bad. Regardless of who it is. Seeing comments like these really make me worry. I don't like trump either but wanting someone to die by microwave is just horrible. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone even as a joke.
@@Rukathesoldier
Do a play on words and a little dark humour frighten and worry you.....?
Maybe you should keep your easily offended self away from the world of social media where offending others and being offended has become an international sport.
Fatma Ramadan Frighten? No. I also never said I was offended. I'm just worried people are going more than a little crazy over trump and really politics in general. I can't go anywhere on the internet without seeing that sort of thing. Death threats against trump or some political insanity. I love dark humor but when the joke is just 'lets kill X' it isn't funny.
@@Rukathesoldier
The chances of trump being micro waved bu a non existent god is not very likely, so not much of a threat..... is it?
South Park covered this concept in their Stargate parody.
Having a go at stuff like the ontological argument can be a fun exercise, but I really don't think people accept it because they find it a convincing piece of logic; they accept it because they like the conclusion.
If God MIGHT be a woman, she MUST be a woman.
If God MIGHT be a unicorn, he MUST be a unicorn.
And here's the kicker.
If God MIGHT NOT exist, he MUST NOT exist.
The ontological argument is internally self-refuting.
if there exists ALL possible worlds, then there MUST be a world where god does not exist. if god does not exist in one world, he is not all powerful and thus cannot exist. ok, i know that is logically fallacious, but it makes as much sense as their argument.
btw, thanks for turning me on to bill ludlow...binge watched him all day yesterday.
oops...made this comment before watching the whole show...my bad
Ho hum, the Craig 'argument' of god exists 'cause I said so.
Coz i want him to.
@Chris Hirst
If there is indeed a spaceless and timeless God, then, first of all, it must have to be ascertained that something is there in nature that is spaceless and timeless. Then only we will have a chance to ask the next question here as to whether this spaceless and timeless thing has got consciousness or not.
Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists, causal set theorists and scientists working with loop quantum gravity - all of them are saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some references:
1) core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16428825.pdf
2) www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
3) www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/are-space-and-time-fundamental/
Below are some relevant quotes:
1) Space (or spacetime) does not exist fundamentally: it emerges somehow from a more fundamental non-spatio-temporal structure. This intriguing claim appears in various approaches to quantum mechanics and quantum gravity. - Composing the World Out of Nowhere
2) In quantum gravity, research programs such as loop quantum gravity state that the relativist spacetime is not fundamentally real and emerges somehow from a non-spatio-temporal ontology. - Ibid
3) “If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line-and, indeed, without a truly classical world-we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.
“That insight, in turn, may help us reconcile quantum physics with that other great pillar of physics, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of spacetime. General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time-in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.” - Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011
Now, what would be the consequences if space and time are not fundamental but emergent? Here are some thoughts:
That space and time are emergent would have at least two implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Thus they would be spaceless and timeless. However scientists are not describing these fundamental entities as spaceless and timeless, they are describing them as non-spatiotemporal. In whichever way they are described, the truth remains the same: those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which would be an absurdity.
That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However, it can be shown that only one entity be there in a spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
At the beginning of this post I have written that if there is indeed a spaceless and timeless God, then, first of all, it must have to be ascertained that something is there in nature that is spaceless and timeless. Here we see that it has been ascertained by the scientists that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature from which spacetime has emerged. It now remains to be seen as to whether this spaceless and timeless thing is conscious or not. Regarding this, we want to convey the following message to the non-believers in general:
‘It is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth but to discover it. If there is a spaceless and timeless God, then scientists will also discover it one day. Up till now they have discovered that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature from which space-time has emerged.
‘So, scientists have been able to deliver this much up till now. For the rest of the bags and baggage, we will wait.’
Yes, we will have to wait for the delivery of the requisite goods from scientists.
@@Ugly_German_Truths that's why you created him.
Philosophical jargon does not a god make.
Thanks Paul for another great video!
Pizza is the one true God and Cheesus is his son. By the way why do they even think that a perfect being must be a god? They could just be advance aliens like in Star Trek the original series when Captain Kirk and crew run into the Greek God Apollo and it turns out according to the episode that the Greek Gods were advanced aliens.
This is far better than pastafarianism. I'm intrigued.
Aren't advanced aliens what "higher beings" really are by definition?
It's right there in the name, they come from outside Earth so they're "higher" in terms of coming from "Heaven" above, and they're also "higher" in terms of being more advanced, with abilities and attributes we currently lack.
Love your maximally great pizza. I've heard Craig himself say the pizza thing. GOOD JOB PAUL.
Great vid as usual Paul
glad you pointed out the reverse ontological argument, it really shows the equivocation fallacy within the argument. The equivocation occurs based on the use of the word possible, the argument wants to use it in the sense that we perceive it to be possible, where as the argument requires it being actually possible, we perceive things as possible all the time that are actually impossible and thats an important difference.
You want to run in circles forever? Find someone defending the ontological argument. It's a good exercise in intellectual endurance.
💚 *quality content* 💚
This is excellent work, thank you
Good video thanks for sharing it with us.
The ontological argument for the existence of pizza/turkey sammich/the ghost who never lies is great and all (he said, sarcastically, knowing they're excellent rebuttals for the ontological circular argument by themselves), but I prefer my ontological argument for the nonexistence of God.
It goes something like this. I haven't used it in a few years so I've forgotten my condensed version.
1)Anything that exists is subject to wear and tear or eventual decay or damage.
2)Anything that decays, becomes damaged or worn is not perfect.
3)God is defined as being perfect.
4)Therefore God cannot exist.
I mean, does any christian want to argue about God's knees giving out on him? Or his face getting extra wrinkles or liver spots? Does God lose any of his pure white beard hairs? Does he have to wash them? Does the keratin dry out? Does he have to enact a magical stasis field to avoid accidentally brushing his fingers through it and bend or pull out any loose hairs? Sure, I'm using absurd examples to make a point, but how exactly is God not wearing down if he exists? Does he not move? Is he completely exempt from the laws of thermodynamics? Then how can he change from one state to the next? How does his level of energy not change if he's moving? Or thinking? Or doing anything?
The only things that do not change are not things at all; they don't exist, there's no "they", we're talking about nothing.
QED. Ask me for my mathematical proof for the nonexistence of God sometime, it's pretty good too.
Sorry, but the first premise is false. For a simple counterexample, electrons exist, but they do not decay, and are not damaged over time.
@Michael Shh, Michael. We're talking about creationist logic, here. Plus I'm pretty sure electrons can turn into something else. Like photons. Electron-positron annihilation.
Of course I was being facetious; it's a really awful argument for theists and it's trivial to ridicule it. But the concept of 'perfection' is absurd too. That was the joke.
@@EdwardHowton So basically, immortality is bullshit and impossible?
@@autobotstarscream765 That's all you got out of all I wrote?
Yes. Immortality is bullshit and impossible. Even if it's for no other reasons than entropy and the fact that it's kinda hard to keep living when the nearest star explodes and engulfs you.
What about the maximum great god-eater?
We got Shaq
A penguin?
ONE MORE GOD REJECTED
Selling cars requires a car, selling houses requires a house, selling religion requires a god, thank goodness for consumer awareness…
Strange how they try to define their god into existence and yet still have nothing
Wouldn't a maximally great pizza have one 'great' quality that God doesn't have, a quality that christians would recognise as a good thing?
A maximally great pizza would exist in such a fashion that no other being would ever go hungry. Solving multiverse hunger is a very great quality indeed, a quality not shared by christian notions of God.
Thundawich I like how Non-Stamp Collector put it, Yahweh will provide adequate food to some of the people some of the time!
I would argue that even that low standard has yet to be demonstrably met.....
God doesnt taste good. So yes, pizza is better
The Church of the Maximally Magnificent Pizza Pie!
Another good video Paul.
Maximally Great Being: I am God.
Maximally Great Being + 1: Hold my beard.
Which is greater, a being that creates the whole universe? Or a being that can create the whole universe without even going to the trouble of existing?
Clearly the latter is greater because it can preform the same function with less effort. Therefore the greatest conceivable being necessarily does not exist.
But that’s logically incoherent
@@charlescarter2072How so? Conceptions don't have to exist in actuality?
I can conceive a pink dragon having a spa in my living room. It doesn't exist.
@@chronographer The act of creation usually involves an agent or being that performs the act. If this being doesn’t exist, questions arise about how it can engage in any action, including the act of creation. The pink dragon is a mere speculative idea but it is not illogical.
@@charlescarter2072 so does having a spa.
@@chronographer ??
Man one creates god... Man two believes it's possible that god exists. Man one says, "I made it up." Man two says, "So, it's still possible, therefore I believe it is true." Man one replies, "But I made it up, you idiot!" Here we are 3,000 years later, and man two says, " Well I believe it anyway." " Man One says "What part of MADE IT UP do you not understand?"
Tim Hallas, Hold up 3,000 yrs? Im sure it’s a bigger #
@@Azozeo: I'm specifically talking about the Hebrew god Yahweh. He was created between 900 and 600 BC.
This really helps me understand the argument in the first place. It is so circular I couldn’t wrap my head around it. Thanks, @Paulogia!
The first time I heard this argument, it was difficult to really beat, but once I took a bit of time to sit back and think about it, yeah its just defining something into existence. I love this video, great job Paul
Thank you for a great video, I liked the reversal of the Ontological Argument where it is shown to be more possible for there to be no god. For me, my Maximally Great Pizza is an Armonds Pizza - Ground Beef, Cheese, I can't think of anything else to make mine. Take care and keep these videos coming.
A maximally great being who isn't limited by being god is greater than one who is, therefore according to the ontological argument (massive and numerous flaws aside) a *maximally great being that isn't god* exists and it says nothing about god existing.
Ah, but the MGB that can do everything another MGB does while having the handicap of being God, makes it a better MGB due to the handicap. Thus the greater the handicap the MGB has and while still doing everything another MGB does, the greater the MGB. Non-existence is the greatest handicap. QED: The true MGB is non-existent.
@@unnefer001 I stand corrected.
"A married Bachelor can not exist" Mr. and Mrs. Albert Bachelor would like to discuss that with you.
Great content.
Arguments are valuable tools in a courtroom. Eventually the lawyer will have to present evidence to support the argument or the jury will vote not guilty. I'm convinced that some people can't, in fact most people...literally can't...accept that they won't exist forever. And this fact about the human condition is then exploited by religious zealots.
It's quite telling (too), that the _debater_ WL Craig keeps the debate section under his videos turned off.
I hope there exists somewhere some possible world or parallel universe where the people can experience a maximally great pizza... The description just souns heavenly.
Mmmm. Yes
And obviously a maximally great pizza is able to top itself with everyone's preferred toppings at once 😋
@@KainaX122 In Cheesus Crust, Amen.
Reading Bill's argument is like riding a roller coaster, we go up we go down we go fast we go slow,but at the end we aren't going anywhere at all
They can never prove any god much less their god.
Like trying to prove santa exsists because people say he exsists and you should follow his laws to get your reward.
@Thomas Ridley
If there is indeed a spaceless and timeless God, then, first of all, it must have to be ascertained that something is there in nature that is spaceless and timeless. Then only we will have a chance to ask the next question here as to whether this spaceless and timeless thing has got consciousness or not.
Scientists who are working with the quantum theory of gravity are now saying that space and time are not fundamental entities at all, but epiphenomena arising from other yet more fundamental entities. Even string theorists, causal set theorists, and scientists working with loop quantum gravity - all of them are saying the same thing that space and time are not fundamental. Below are some references:
1) core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16428825.pdf
2) www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
3) www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/are-space-and-time-fundamental/
Below are some relevant quotes:
1) Space (or spacetime) does not exist fundamentally: it emerges somehow from a more fundamental non-spatio-temporal structure. This intriguing claim appears in various approaches to quantum mechanics and quantum gravity. - Composing the World Out of Nowhere
2) In quantum gravity, research programs such as loop quantum gravity state that the relativist spacetime is not fundamentally real and emerges somehow from a non-spatio-temporal ontology. - Ibid
3) “If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line-and, indeed, without a truly classical world-we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.
“That insight, in turn, may help us reconcile quantum physics with that other great pillar of physics, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of spacetime. General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time-in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.” - Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011
Now, what would be the consequences if space and time are not fundamental but emergent? Here are some thoughts:
That space and time are emergent would have at least two implications. It would imply that those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time and it would also imply that they cannot be material. They cannot be within any space and time simply because space and time have emerged from them and therefore there was no space and time prior to the emergence of space and time. Thus they would be spaceless and timeless. However scientists are not describing these fundamental entities as spaceless and timeless, they are describing them as non-spatiotemporal. In whichever way they are described, the truth remains the same: those fundamental entities from which space and time have emerged cannot be within any space and time. Being thus spaceless and timeless (or non-spatiotemporal) they would also be immaterial. This is because GR has shown that space, time and matter are so interlinked that when there would be matter, there would be space and time as well. So, if those fundamental entities were material, then there would also be space and time along with those material entities. In that case, there would already be space and time prior to the emergence of space and time, which would be an absurdity.
That means the fundamental entities from which spacetime has emerged were spaceless, timeless and immaterial. However, it can be shown that only one entity be there in a spaceless and timeless condition which would further mean that spacetime has emerged from one single entity only that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
At the beginning of this post, I have written that if there is indeed a spaceless and timeless God, then, first of all, it must have to be ascertained that something is there in nature that is spaceless and timeless. Here we see that it has been ascertained by the scientists that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature from which spacetime has emerged. It now remains to be seen as to whether this spaceless and timeless thing is conscious or not. Regarding this, we want to convey the following message to the non-believers in general:
‘It is not the job of the scientists to manufacture truth but to discover it. If there is a spaceless and timeless God, then scientists will also discover it one day. Up till now, they have discovered that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature from which space-time has emerged.
‘So, scientists have been able to deliver this much up till now. For the rest of the bags and baggage, we will wait.’
Yes, we will have to wait for the delivery of the requisite goods from scientists.
@@udaybhanuchitrakar8812 all the fundmental forces work together to make our exsistsnce possible. The how and why of our exsistance is lost to time.
Quantum levels can go deeper than we can ever detect. That still doesn't lead to any god we have imagined so far.
@@thomasridley8675
Your comment shows that you do not know anything about the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. This phenomenon has repeatedly shown that at some deeper layer in the universe space and time do not exist at all. That is the reason as to why the connection between two entangled particles is established instantaneously, defying all the space-time separation between the two. That is also the reason as to why scientists are now saying just like the mystics that space and time are illusions and that the universe and its material content might not be in space and time.
In case the two particles after the interaction between them go at the two ends of the universe, even then the connection between these two particles will be established instantaneously, showing as if the distance between the two ends of the universe is zero.
If you have any doubt about it, you can verify it from google.
So, quantum mechanics and quantum theory themselves have shown that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature.
Now, we will have to see as to whether this spaceless and timeless thing is conscious or not.
@@udaybhanuchitrakar8812 How far down can we go. We don't know. Still doesn't break anything. We are here. What they find will mesh with current theories in time. If your looking for a god. Your looking in the wrong place. Its an internal problem not an external one.
@@thomasridley8675
I am not looking for a god. I am showing what scientists have found with their investigations in nature. Now they are saying that space-time is not fundamental and that there is something non-spatiotemporal in nature from which space-time has emerged. For your kind information, 'non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. This is because theories of relativity have taught the scientists that space and time can no longer be treated as two separate entities; rather, space and time combined should be treated as one single entity: spacetime.
If spacetime is not fundamental but emergent, then that means there is something more fundamental than spacetime from which it has emerged. This something more fundamental than spacetime cannot be within any spacetime for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to the emergence of spacetime. Therefore the entity from which spacetime has emerged will be spaceless and timeless, or non-spatiotemporal. This is nothing but simple logic.
I thought that you are an educated person. Now I am beginning to have doubt about it.
There is only one God: *_COFFEE_*
And I need more of him
Coffee! How barbaric! I am an enlighted Tea-ologist, my prophet is Earl Gray, my scriptures are compiled in "50 shades of Earl Gray" series. Educate yourself and see the tea-light.
I think you are confused, the one God is garlic. Shall we go to war then? :)
Tea exists.
Therefore, I'll put the kettle on.
Once I have my espresso the day can start, not before.
Lol
People sometimes say "it is possible", when what they actually mean is "I don't know that it is impossible".
Another great video!!!!
A Maximally Great Pizza would have to exist in all possible Pizzerias.
It necessarily would, yes. And I lived in Florida for a while; I've seen some bad pizza in my day.
I loathe tomatoes, so, as far as I'm concerned, a maximally great pizza is one that does _not_ exist.
@@michaelsommers2356 Well for me, I don't eat cheese. So a maximally great pizza to me is one that's probably not really a pizza to others.
Michael Sommers tomato sauce is not a necessary component of MGP.
If it is possible to conceive of a possible world without a maximally great and a maximally great being must exist on every possible world than a maximally great being must not exist
I can conceive of a universe that contains nothing but 3 electrons, forever accelerating away from each other. No MGB in there, ergo the ontological argument fails.
Great analysis Paul!
The Ontological argument is supremely childlike.
My objection to the MOA:
Where are all the other actual worlds?
Properly formulated, (3) reads as follows:
"If a maximally great being exists in some possible, but non-actual world, then it exists in every possible, but non-actual world."
Based on this, (4) - (6) no longer work.
But if (4) is true, then the 'actual world' (the world we live in) must be a _subset_ of all actual worlds. One can't claim the actual world is a subset of possible worlds, if no other possible world is actual. But the argument presents the 'actual world' as subset of other worlds (one out of many; deduction from every to one specific...which means the specific world must share the attribute 'actual' with all other possible worlds) but _ignores_ its actuality. It only focuses on its possibility.
In order for (4) to be true, (3) must read as follows:
"If a maximally great being exists in some actual world, then it exists in every actual world."
Then and only then, one can formulate (4):
"If a maximally great being exists in every actual world, then it exists in the actual world we live in.".
Then and only then, (5) and (6) could follow.
Therefore, where are all the other actual worlds?
No, the actual world *is* a member of the set of all possible worlds, since it is in fact possible. Indeed, so far as I can tell, it's the only world we *know* to be possible. It seems to me that philosophers who use modal logic abuse the notion of 'possible'.
@@jursamaj
While it's true that the actual world we live in is a member of the set of all possible worlds, it is not a member of the set of all actual worlds (as long as no other actual world exists). But _both_ attributes (possible _and_ actual) must apply in order for the argument to work.
Without ever mentioning 'actual worlds' in one of the premises before (4), how could one ever get to the actual world we live in of (4)?
If the whole set of possible worlds is not actual, then neither can be the world we live in. But it is. Thus, all possible worlds must be actual so they argument can work.
Either _all_ possible worlds are actual or _none_ is.
I spotted this bit of equivocation as well. There's a big difference between a possible world that we can conceive of and a world that actually exists. WLC starts with possible worlds and switches to actual worlds, hoping nobody notices.
I can conceive of many possible types of pizza topping but my local pizza place does not sell most of them. I can conceive of a hedgehog and dogshit topping but my local pizza place doesn't sell it (even though it sells ones that taste like it).
WLC's sleight of hand is to equivocate possible and actual. Even if none of the other steps were fallacious, that one blows his argument out of the water.
Now here's a bit of logic that "proves" god doesn't exist...
P1) If WLC had a better argument for the existence of god than his revised ontological argument, he'd use it.
P2) WLC's revised ontological argument is bollocks.
C1) There is no valid argument for god.
C2) From C1, god does not exist.
The flaws in that syllogism:
F1) WLC is smart enough to find a better argument.
F2) WLC is smart enough to use a better argument if he had one.
@@TheBastius We've agreed that the actual world is a member of the set of all possible worlds. If one can then prove anything about all possible worlds (as the Ontological Argument claims to do), they have automatically proved it about the actual world, *because* the actual is possible. I suppose to be entirely rigorous, the argument should mention that the actual is possible, but I believe that is inherent in the whole "possible worlds" model.
You say "If the whole set of possible worlds is not actual, then neither can be the world we live in:, but that makes no sense. A member of a set only has to match the other members in the manner required for membership in the set, not in every way.
@@jursamaj
Without all the other possible worlds being equally actual, the deduction from 'every' to 'one specific' no longer works. The attributes of the actual world we live in are 'possible' _and_ 'actual'. The argument admits that the attributes of 'every' and 'one specific' must be shared in order for the deduction to be valid (the actual world we live in as possible as all other possible worlds). But since there is an _additional_ attribute in the actual world - its actuality - it means all other possible worlds must be equally actual in order for the deduction to still be valid.
*_»A member of a set only has to match the other members in the manner required for membership in the set, not in every way.«_*
The problem is it couldn't be the case that the set of all possible worlds contains all non-actual _and_ actual worlds at the same time because why would some worlds be actual and others not?
What's the reason for why not all possible worlds are actual?
If, for instance, 10 worlds are possible (5 actual and 5 non-actual), then why can't there be more than 5 actual worlds? If there is a limit of actual worlds (because of a limit of possible worlds), then it means all the other possible worlds are no longer possible (only possible worlds could be actualized). But even if the number of actual worlds is infinite, and the number of possible worlds contains an infinite number of actual and non-actual worlds (same cardinality), the question is still there:
What's the reason for why not all possible worlds are actual?
If the two sets (actual and non-actual worlds) within the set of possible worlds are infinite, then it again means the other possible, but non-actual worlds are not possible (the infinite number of actual worlds contains all the worlds that are actualized...the other worlds couldn't be actuzalized because they are not possible).
That's why either all possible worlds must be actual or no world is actual at all.
I used Plantigna's Modal Ontological Argument to determine there was, in fact, a Maximally Great Sharpie. Thanks for doing this, Paul.
Also... why do all your videos make me hungry? Damnit! Now I've gotta get a pizza.
#nopineapple
same question here ....
Paulogia.. great stuff, very concise and well researched!! Never seen/heard the reverse modal ontological argument that you used,... Nice!
Btw I'm the guy who asked you for your thoughts on some (what I thought of good) questions for YEC's I had came up with, in the chat of modern day debate(Kent vs Destiny). It was useful since it's easy to straw-man anyone and I want to prevent it if/when I can. Thanks again for interacting,... I didn't know I could like you more then I did before.
12:28 “Saying there is no God is a contradiction because God exists.” LMAO
Way to go Craig, you just argumented God into existence. Now what? There's still zero evidence supporting your claim.
There is zero evidence supporting the necessity of evidence.
In the theory of the existence of god, the only argument for it, is that some people believe it is true. That's it. That's the whole argument.
@@timhallas4275 Everyone knows there is a creator. People just reject Him.
@@amcsween4923 that's your presupposition,not a fact
@@mr.ekshun2053 'facts' are social constructs...
Just here to say yay! Listening on my lunch break. See ya then!
So technically you get two clicks out of me
Atheism=lack of a belief in a supernatural deity
Disabled comments=lack of belief in your own content
A thing cant be both omniscient and omnipotent as it is logically possible to forget something, but an omniscient being cannot forget anything.
Well, the Bible smashes the Ontological argument as they frame it.
not so much smashes as makes "their" god incompatible with the concept of maximal greatness as the god of the bible is petty, cruel, incompetent, ignorant and can be overpowered by iron cartwheels...So if there is a maximally great god out there, it must be highly amused by YHWHs fanclub that sincerely believes he could be both "just like the book says" and anywhere NEAR as good as it gets.
0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=/=1
My favorite cumulative case rebuttal in a nutshell
The intro ad was about which church to attend - If you go to some churches, the Lord will guide you
So, to recap:
This argument posits that it isn’t possible that a maximally great being doesn’t exist.
…And that’s because existence is part of the definition of maximal greatness.
But if existence is necessary for maximal greatness, that doesn’t mean that saying something is maximally great means it exists…
…it means that if said thing doesn’t really exist, it isn’t true that it’s maximally great.
Paulogia I didn't hear one element of the "greatness" spelled out, so the full attempt would include "Since existing is greater than not existing, a maximally great being would exist," and that is where they smuggle in the circular argument. But functionally, your video covered that.
Thanks for another good one.
Completely unrelated, but watching the mouth of your animation when my headphones fell off was hilarious for reasons I can’t understand. Great video enjoy the algorithm boost
- could god have created this universe without child rape?
- if yes then god is not perfectly moral
- if no god is not all powerful
Yeah, I had a serious problem with point 3. Glad you pointed it out :)