My personal critique is that Anselm's reasoning has the same fallacious argumentation as Pascale's Wager, in that, you can essentially make the argument for most any presumably non-material entity other than God. For example, I can say, "I think that the concept of invisible omnipotent gnomes living beneath the surface of the Earth is the greatest thought one can think. Therefore, all powerful invisible gnomes must exist in reality if I truly believe them to be the "greatest" 😅 My point is, I suppose, that even within the realm of religion, human subjectivity still plays a significant role
In that case I guess the gnomes would be "God". Maybe not the Christian God that Anselm is hoping for but if we're flexible w our definition of God then anything supreme like that can essentially be God.
thats a misunderstanding of the argument - "invisble gnomes" is a restrictive concept which prescribes certain limitations of form and being, therefore anything containing invisble gnomes as an ontological descriptor is already not the greatest thought one can think. The agrument is that the highest thing we can think is something omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent - just by the sheer definition of the greates thought as the thought of the utterly all encompassing highest principle of everything, which we call god. - so the argument is not that we have this thought that we call god und just proclaim it as the greatest thought - its the other way around in that we identify the greatest thought and we call this thought/concept god.
@@sollbruchstelleamknicklich9495 What I don't understand is why the entity needs to be omnibenevolent? Why not an omnimalevolent god? If the entity's conception of good happens to be our conception of evil, wouldn't the argument still work from that entity's perspective?
@@basedbasepair8664 This is one of those questions that is really hard to answer in any categorical way. From the outset, I think we run an into an error of thought when we think of gods/God as entities (or entity). The reason for that largely ties into Heidegger's criticism of western metaphysics since Plato. We should rather think of them more as a Being (again, in a Heideggerian or phenomenological sense) rather than entities. It's not that it (God) inherently 'needs' to be omnibenevolent -- it's that, if we human beings want to thrive and attain higher and more expansive states of consciousness, then an omnibenevolent conception of an ultimate transcendent Being is the only game in town. No civilization ever thrived worshipping Bhaal (for my D&D nerds) -- because the worship of such (omni)malevolent entities, for some 'universal reason' - ends up leading toward the disintegration of the 'human superorganism', and the loss of higher states of conscious awareness within our minds. In other words, the worship of such beings drives mankind downward to the beast, not upward towards the heavens. Imo, if you're willing to accept that - then the fact that the structure of our Being is set up in this way, seems to be evidence of a benevolent intelligence of some kind. Of course, God has a dark-side, and in the orthodox Abrahamic traditions - that's Satan. God is the oneness of all beings (i.e unity, non-duality, etc.), Satan is the one experiencing itself as many beings (separation, duality, etc.). Difficult concepts to get across, but hopefully that given an idea.
That is because of the unity of ontology and epistemology in the essence of God. As you go higher in epistemology (perfection in understanding) you get horizontally closer to ontology (perfection in existence).
Not quite. The idea is that if you agree with his premises, you should logically agree with his conclusion. I know, it’s a bit mind-bending 🤯. The argument can be summarized like this: *1.* God is defined as the greatest conceivable being-nothing greater can be imagined. *2.* Existing in both the mind and reality is greater than existing only in the mind. *Conclusion:* Therefore, God must exist in reality, since a God who exists only in the mind wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being. Now, if you agree with *Premises 1* and *2* , then yes, God must exist. However, you can disagree with Premise 2 by arguing that there’s no direct reason why existing in both the mind and reality should be considered 'greater' than existing only in the mind. You can also disagree with the first one, saying that God is actually another thing etc.
@@abrarahmad-mw4dk Yes, you kinda can. Because unicorn and pizzas exists... in reality and in your mind. Because your mind is in reality. If you think about an unicorn, and i take a snapshot of your brain, we could find out the shape of the information of the unicorn in your brain. So the unicorn might not exists like a white horse with a horn in the african jungle, but the Unicorn, the thing that you are thinking the moment you are thinking about the unicorn does exists in reality AND MUST EXIST in reality.
Yay, I learned something new today. My critique of this argument is that I find God's existence to be linked in some way to consciousness. If a person's consciousness were a manifestation/creation of God's, then that consciousness must also be greater than all conceivable consciousnesses. In other words, consciousness would be infinite and include every possible consciousness in reality. But that is most certainly not true because my consciousness follows rules and has clear boundaries (for example: I perceive to always be living in a state of objective reality. If my mind were infinite, then bizarre things would be happening all the time and it wouldn't make sense). Therefore, God has to be finite and can't be as great as possible as the argument states.
@@ourdivinemouseoverlord3308 it also leads one to think "is it true that thinking God to be the greatest makes God the greatest, or is thinking about the very thinking even greater?"
Saying that human consciousness, if derived from God, would lead to bizarre phenomena is wrong. The limits and boundaries of human consciousness are appropriate to our finite nature, not a reflection of God’s limitations. God's infinity means He transcends our understanding, but He can create finite beings with limited experiences without diminishing His own greatness. Thus, the finite nature of human consciousness does not imply that God is finite but instead highlights the difference between the Creator and the created.
God's consciousness must be separate from ours in order to be maximally great, otherwise He's dependent on creation and also on finite things. I don't think infinite consciousness necessarily includes all finite consciousnesses, just that it must be aware of everything which exists and be absolutely pure. Consciousness as an idea is the ability to perceive, and thus the greatest consciousness would just need to perceive all things without impediment.
I'm tired of saying this, but the fundament of most world religions is faith. If the existence of a god can be proven based on evidence then all faith is redundant.. and religion would be a science.
People been talking about gods before any religions started And then there’s been plenty groups that believe direct knowledge or experience is obtainable
It's not. The modern words faith doesn't mean the same thing it did back them. The Greek word in the Bible translated as faith is pistus. It essentially means to rely on to have reliable evidence. This is why pistus is the root world for ePISTEmology or the Greek word for knowledge. Also Latin words like confidence have a root of the Latin word for faith. Faith being a belief without evidence is more of a modern concept that a biblical one. I think the best translation of pistus is probably the word trust. If you read the bible the word faith as meaning to believe without evidence makes no sense. As he constantly says or faith is based on it and if Jesus is false then so is our faith. Paul constantly involves evidence and asks others to verify it. You are making a equivocation fallacy.
Alright here is my attempt at a proper response: Assumption 1: God is something that which nothing greater can be thought. Already we run into the bogus use of the word greater, what metric are we using by which god is greater? Or are we just using words without meanings now? Assuming the statement to be true anyway. Next the author attempts to separate mind and reality, which is another assumption. We havent defined reality or thought, how are they connected and are they connected at all? Now the author assumes the following: thing X is greater if it exists in reality and the mind, than Y which exists in mind only. Here we have a big problem, we need to know what metric we are using to define greater, currently the statement has no meaning. How can we compare objects greatness in reality to objects greatness in the mind. How are the mind and reality connected? And what even is reality and the mind? A host of problems have already been identified. Is reality created by the mind, or is the mind situated within reality? How can you prove either case? Then we run into a glaring logical error. We are trying to say, for X to be the greatest thought, X must exist in reality. It is a logical leap to assume there exists a greatest thought, considering we dont even know what greater means in this context. Additionally, we assumed it is greater to exist in thought and reality, than thought alone. However, the greatest of thoughts doesnt need to exist in reality, because it is the greatest THOUGHT. If X exists in thought and reality it is greater than Y which exists in thought alone. But the metrics for being greater here are DIFFERENT. We are saying X is greater than Y as an object because it exists in reality. But this has no bearing on which is the greater thought. Example: -you think you win the lottery, but in reality, you win nothing. Then we compare the thoughts, so the author would have us believe that the thought of losing the lottery is greater than the thought of winning. Already the word greater is losing meaning that is never had in the first place. Like earlier mentioned, comparing the greatness of thoughts is not even a definable operation, therefore is meaningless. It is impossible to order the set of "complex numbers", which are relatively easy to understand. Thoughts are incredibly complicated in comparison, to the point they have an assumed definition, ordering thoughts which are poorly defined objects in terms of greatness is entirely subjective and impossible in a general sense. Overall, the argument gets a 0 from me. Like any attempt to prove or disprove god, cant even come up with a good definition and completely defeats the point of faith.
I think my problem is one that a lot of people have already said in one way or another, but why does acknowledging that it would be greater for something to exist in reality make it real? Like... That's not cause and effect. That's just wishful thinking.
Simply because it's not. The ontological argument doesn't really prove God in of itself. If it did it would be circular. What it does is prove a universe without God in impossible. Therefore God existing is the only other choice. God being greater is just defining God. You can put any definition into the ontological argument and get one of three answers. Either it is impossible for it to not exist. Like logic truth maths God consciousness etc. It is contingent which means it is possible but relys on other things to also exist. Or it is impossible which means is can not exist. It's not wishful thinking it is logically thinking.
the idea is that God is the being which has no greater thing above it so since existence is better then non-existence Anselm says that it has to exist for it to have no greater being so by necessity it must exist rather then not exist.
Plato would say that things which can only be thought are greater than the things which can be both thought of, and exist in reality. Because the things that exist in reality are mere copies or iterations of the Forms of the things, and degradations of them. The Forms are apprehended by the intellect alone, and are eternal in nature, which makes them superior to physical objects, which are at best copies of the Forms, and subject to change and disintegration. For Plato, God is apprehended by the Intellect alone, since God is nothing else but the Form of The Good, towards which the Philosopher keeps his mind constantly focused. For Plato, a God that existed "in reality" would be either nonsense or a degradation.
3:13 this is the part which I disagree with. To us it seems very intuitive that existing is better than not existing, but I don't see how we could logically prove that. Yes the painter would LOVE their painting to exist but the painter's feelings towards existence doesn't logically justify that existence is better than non-existance. I'm also not convinced we can confidently say that we have thought of the being that which nothing greater can be thought of. We're finite beings and as a consequence of this, we'll always be limited in our thinking and perception. So whatever we conclude as being "that which nothing greater can be thought of" is just the limits of our finite minds. Overall, I really like this argument, even as an atheist, I think it's a nice mind puzzle everyone can engage in and think through. The arguments for god really become cool thought experiments when you detach your emotions from them. I used to get so annoyed at arguments for god and immediately have a hostile attudie and try to find a way to disprove them. I don't care now, at least not emotionally, so I have a good time with them and talking to people. If anyone would like to discuss anything I've talked about here, reply and let's have a convo! Please just write your replies as simple as you can because this is already a confusing topic and I'm bad at reading lol
I met some very outspoken atheist who had no interest in talking, but only disproving, as you said. Most often with ridicule and insults. So it's always good to see people who choose a different position than outright conflict. I'd like to recommend you for that, and I agree that your counter argument is sound.
@@verhygo4844 Every honest person who engages with these topics, atheist or theist, MUST keep in mind Socrates' quote, "The only thing I know, is that I know nothing" otherwise it will just turn into a battle and not an actual discussion aimed at reaching truth or relative agreement. It's really important to detach ourselves emotionally with our positions and beliefs. It's really hard, but possible. Once we aren't emotionally tied to our beliefs we can fully and honestly examine them without getting into a fight with someone. Thanks for the reply! 💛
I do think you are right. But what you have to understand is that this is a older version of the ontological argument. Greater is not necessarily the best word to use. To put it in better terms that which is the least contingent of all things. Essentially a thing that causes other things to exist but doesn't itself rely on anything. Most Christians see God as actualization or the platonic property of existence. So the bible talks a lot about who God is but not what he is.but we see God defined this way. So we plug it into the ontological argument which I want to add is not just used to prove God but other things as well like logic.
@@mitslev4043 God is also often defined as the beginning and the end in scriptures. Looking at this statement from purely a conceptual level, we recognize everything to be defined through its limitations. So when anyone searches the understanding of how these limitations interact with one another, they inevitably come to question how these limitations came to be in the first place and why they interact with one another in the way that they do. In science, we find this very thought reflected. Culminating in the origin of the universe through the big bang. The emergence of all matter. Time and space. Though we intuitively understand concepts to exist outside the limitations of time and space, we currently have no way to confirm that the material emerged from the immaterial. And not the other way around. By the very nature of science, a, before the beginning of time, is therefore impossible to investigate with its currently available methods. As would be the mapping of concepts. Though, I find that ultimately a distinction that misses its point. As humans, we continue to exist, or at least our consciousness, only in relation to the immaterial. To understand the origin of all limitations or define it as our creator, even if not in a religious sense, still seems accurate. Without a beginning and end to our thoughts, or all concepts they are comprised of, we can't exist. Distinctions between concepts are necessary for us to communicate, rationalize, and interact with the material world around us. If man-made concepts like money or concepts of hunger and thirst, that precede our conscious efforts as a species. Consciousness is a narrative experience and requires structure to exist. Just makes me wonder if there's grammar to it...
@@verhygo4844 the thing is conceptual things are the only candidates for what physical matter came from. Physical things are by definition contingent and metaphysics things are not. And we use ontological arguments to show that some conceptual things exist by necessity and proceed to give rise to other concepts. So I thing it's safe to say concepts didn't come from matter at least not all of them. How things actually actualize physically is still a mystery. The thing about it is that God is not defined by his limitations but lack there of. Technically speaking the only limitations God has are the logically impossible and logically impossible things are not considered thing. They are just called things because it's the easiest way to say it in English. So the "limitations" of God are none existent. In other words words only have meaning when they relate to something that is real but when it is impossible it has no meaning. The same way the words tree, coffee, jumping, and halo all have meaning but if you said the sentence " tree coffee jumping halo" despite its part haveimg meaning the sentence as a while becomes meaningless. When God limit are only what is logical that makes everything he can't do illogical or in other words meaningless or none existent. Also you a wrong about defining God as the beginning and the end. Beginning and end are referencing the scriptures before about the Alpha and Omega the first and last letter of the Greek alphabet which is a reference to John 1:1 which is a reference to Genesis 1:1. In Genesis in the original Hebrew you from the first and last letter of the Hebrew alphabet which God used to speak all things into creation. The beginning and the end is referring to the idea that God is the creator of all things not defining but rather describing his actions. Im this instance it is symbolic of him reasserting his sovereignty over the whole of his creation begining to end.
Awesome video! Let's dive into it a little bit (more) with a couple words: _synergy_ and _gestalt._ _Synergy_ is when the parts of a machine/group work together to create more output as a whole (than would be produced by the combined totals of the individual components). _Gestalt,_ similarly to synergy, is when the overarching functions of a system (or group of systems) combine to create something "greater than the sum of its parts". In this particular concept (e.g. the ontological argument for the _"mandatory"_ existence of a "greater" being), _GOD_ would be the combined aspects of synergy, observation, and the resulting _gestalt_ created by said synergies. TL;DR- Define "God" as "everything that exists" plus "the awareness of existence" to emulate a cosmopantheistic entity that is "more than just reality". Even shorter TL;DR- The Universe is God and we are all parts within.
@@BrytonBand With a simulation twist and an all-inclusive entity (pun intended?), it's like pantheism mixed with philosophical additives. Lol (Like a zeitgeist that went Super Saiyan.)
So the counter argument is that: If one can imagine a something that which nothing greater can be thought at the same time that isn't limited by a need to have physical reality in order to be the greatest though, then that wil be greater than the one that existing in both in reality and in the thought.
Greater is that a thing that exists in reality and in mind is more than the thing that exists in mind. By definition the thing that exists in mind and in reality is greater because it is more than the thing that only exists in mind.
A better one to deal with would be the Modal Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga. There has been a little bit of development in the last few hundred years, and it's probably best to look at some more contemporary versions of the arguments and see how they hold up.
I think the modal ontological argument's more convoluted, but just as bad. It basically operates by conflating different meanings of possible, I think. By "possible" we can mean something's objectively possible--there's no law of reality preventing it from being so--or we could just mean it's possible as far as I know--there's nothing that I know that prevents it from being so. If you pick one meaning and use it consistently, then the modal ontological argument doesn't work.
@@jamesc3505 I disagree, I think the MOA uses the first definition you mentioned, and then consistently follows it to the logical end. I don't think it equivocates at any point. It does mean that the first premise ("It is possible that a maximally great being exists") is TAKEN by some people at first to mean the "for all we know" type of sense, and that's exactly not what it means. So, if one is thinking of it in that kind of sense, then I can understand how it feels like an equivocation has been done here, because that's how it felt to me at first too. I really really struggled with this. I thought, how is this not just question begging? How is this not just defining God into existence? How are brilliant minds like Dr. William Lane Craig and Michael Jones of Inspiring philosophy taking this so seriously? How is Plantinga taking this seriously? But I decided to really listen to them explain it a few times, and to my genuine shock, I came away from it actually excited about the argument. I think it's rock solid, because it's perfectly logically valid, and the only contentious premise is, in fact, the first one. Everything else is simply the logical outworking of the soundness of the first premise. It IS a more serious assertion than one initially takes it as. It really is the stronger sense of possible, the kind of "no logical incoherence to forbid it" sense, but after that's established as being actually possible, it follows directly that God HAS TO exist. If it's impossible for him to exist because of some logical contradiction, like a square circle, then, obviously God cannot exist, but if it isn't impossible, it's impossible for Him not to, as shocking as that sounds.
@@WillEhrendreich: We don't just need there to be no logical incoherence to forbid it. There's no logical incoherence to forbid that Russell's teapot is objectively necessary. No logical incoherence is a low bar. We need it to be consistent with the fundamental underlying nature of reality. To determine that, we'd need to prove what the fundamental underlying nature of reality is. And if we could do that, I expect we'd probably already know if there's a god anyway.
My issue with this is that it's akin to trying to imagine "the highest possible integer, that which no other higher integer exists". This number does not exist because any possibility can be refuted by simply adding one to it. The same can be said for god. Any "greatest possible being" can be proven to not exist by imagining an even greater being which creates said being.
The problem is the definition of a being greater than the greatest is contradictory. Rendering it impossible. Also it invokes the law of identity. If you imagine a greater being it's not greater than the greatest. It is the greatest and is therefore God. Also integers go on forever. Qualities don't necessarily have to. Like the color red. You can get more or less red but you can't get infinitely more red. At some point a thing is just 100% red.
I have two additional problems with this argument: The first is that it treats existence as a trait, a quality things possess. This essentially mean we just define, in a round about way, that existence is a trait of God and therefore it exists. God exists and therefore it exists. In the same way, I could define hadcarnoth as a special kind of unicorn that is greater and more awesome than any other beast that can be thought. But wait, wouldn't it be more awesome if it actually existed? Therefore hadcarnoth has to exist and since it is a type of unicorn it means unicorns exist. Do you see the absurdity? Another problem is the definition. Actually, no, God is not the greatest thing that can be thought because most conceptions of God are that it is beyond our human mind ability to grasp and therefore God cannot be thought.
Additionally, the relationship between mind and reality cannot be established. Is reality entirely a construct of consciousness/mind, or is the mind situated within some reality? Or are both cases false somehow. The whole argument in this video is non logical
This is, pure and simple, sophistry. Anselm uses rhetoric to come up with an argument that sounds like it *could* be true. For one thing, "God must be personal because he has to have the highest level of person-hood" is ludicrous prima facie, because God must also have the highest level of imperson-hood. Secondly, if God is the "greatest" of everything, then he's also "the greatest evil" in which case he's not worthy of being called a benevolent god (Theodicy argument). Finally, the linear concept of "reality must be dependent upon one thing" is flawed, because Anselm doesn't address the theme of interdependence which is common in eastern religion; where all of reality is dependent on all other aspects of reality, and thus there is nothing that can be conceived of as "greater than everything".
The argument starts from the assumption that god is greater than anything one can think about. Ignoring the bogus use of "greater", if we find a contradiction down the line of logic, it is the initial assumption that is false, unless you make other assumptions that are unrelated to that assumption. In this case the use of reducto ad absurdum is incorrect. There are a host of other issues you could pick apart.
I am a convinced Theist and I love the ontological argument because it's made me scratch my head over and over again, but personally I don't buy it. I think Anselm's original argument is intriguing, but the modal version of the modern argument of the argument is probably the most captivating. I think that my core objection is that, while it follows that if God exists, He cannot fail to exist, I don't think actually gets us to establishing His actual existence. If God exists, He indeed does exist in every possible world, but only if He does exist can He not fail to exist and we can conceive of a world in which He does not exist, at least on principle. I could be misunderstanding the argument, but I'm still probably going to revisit it over and over again and I may change my mind one day. It's just so perplexing.
That's a different ontological argument. But I agree that God doesn't seem to have the same kind of necessity that the number 2 or the law of non contradiction do. We can make clear predictions of what a "no god" world would be like. Fine tuning relies on this.
@@goldenalt3166 Of course, but I guess I'm more familiar with the spinoff than the original. I lean towards thinking that a world with no God would look a certain way, but I think you need additional and complicated arguments to show this.
Reposting what I posted elsewhere: I think the modal ontological argument's more convoluted, but just as bad. It basically operates by conflating different meanings of possible, I think. By "possible" we can mean something's objectively possible--there's no law of reality preventing it from being so--or we could just mean it's possible as far as I know--there's nothing that I know that prevents it from being so. If you pick one meaning and use it consistently, then the modal ontological argument doesn't work.
@@jamesc3505 I agree. I think that it's an interesting argument, but I just don't buy that God's existence being "possible" according to one definition of the word means that it's possible in the other way that something can be possible. The jump is too far for me.
This is kinda like defining ought as the ultimate defining force of actual things in reality, which i've contemplated. God could be because he should be because he is what ought to be, and that ought is plausible answer to why some things exist rather than other things since rationality can only explain things on the basis of logistics which are contingent on something to be logical of not why there is in the first place.
The ontological argument don't work for me cuz for something to be greater in reality and mind means that "greatness" as a concept exists, which is a concept that I only subscribe to because I believe in god already.
My critique is that the moment you say what exist in both reality and imagination are greater than what only exist only in the mind, you automatically place reality limitations on your imagination
So basically: "Thought + Reality = Greater (god)" But what if I imagine there to be something that is greater with only "Thought" that doesn't need the "Reality" part to be "greater?" What I'm saying is that it's a bit of a leap of logic to say you need the "Exists in reality" part to make something "greater."
Nothing more than philosophical gymnastics to come to the conclusion they desire! And as time goes on the Stockholm syndrome of religious peoples slavery to their God is astounding!
You are right. What the ontological argument does is take something we can think of and asks not if it can exist but if it can not exist. We use the ontological argument to prove all kinds of things. Like truth logic maths consciousness etc. it's a way of testing the existence of a thing.
What if what your thinking of thought itself, in that case, merely by you thinking, the thought itself really does exist in so far as there is a thought that is thought about.
@@peamutbubber it's the same argument we use to prove things like maths logic truth and consciousness. And you can find ontological arguments where they define all their terms. If you want to be technical all arguments fail. Look up the Munchausen trilemma
@@peamutbubber: "The argument does nothing but make assumptions and fail to define half the words used. Like any argument trying to prove or disprove god, FAIL" I wouldn't say it's like any argument. I think the ontological argument and modal ontological argument for a god's existence, together with the god rock paradox against a god's existence are in their own special category of stupid.
"Most unique" is not correct English. "Unique" is an absolute, it is mot modifiable. It means "one of a kind." A thing cannot be "most one of a kind." A thing is "one of a kind" or it is not. You need another adjective for which your argument is the most of.
Unique can also be a universal and apply to anything like red can, you are both unique because you are the only you there is, but in a larger context not unique as you are 1 in 8 billion, so a most unique person would be unique in every context rather that a single one. To say you are unique can be true, while a person which has abilities that surpass others that are unique, such as Micheal Jordan amongst professional basketball players could be described as, the NBA is full of unique talents, but Micheal Jordan is the most unique off them all while relating talents to normal people who are individually unique, but because they can still be grouped, there can be a more so case. God is this case a He is the most unique concept while concepts are themselves unique, but God would be so in all cases unique amongst the unique, hence, the most
Just because we can define something as necessarily having a certain property in order to be what we imagine doesn't mean there has to be a real thing that fits that definition. We imagine the Hulk as the strongest one there is, but in reality I'm stronger -- I can lift some amount of weight, but as a fictional character he can't lift any. For something that existed in reality to be the Hulk, it would have to be stronger than me, but the Hulk doesn't exist in reality, therefore he doesn't meet that condition. Anselm wants us to accept that the property of existence is an exception, but why? Therefore, even if we grant that there can be a singular measure of greatness, and that existing in reality is always greater than not existing in reality, the most that proves is that any version of God that actually existed would have the property of existing necessarily. But if God doesn't exist, he doesn't have any of the properties we associate with him in reality, including that one.
Indeed, I'm not a philosopher but if this being is omnipotent is he/she locked into its own existence and therefore constrained from ending its own existence?
Well, God is defined as the greatest thing ever for the purposes of this argument. It might not be "your God," but it is the Godlike being this argument attempts to prove.
It's because it's arguing for a specific kind of God. If you were arguing for a god like Zeus who is basically a human with superpowers you would use different arguments. The word God just means anything that's worshiped.
@@RachManJohn yeah. It is different for every argument. It really important to define your terms and stay within the parameters any one argument sets up
2:41 How can God be greater than a billion dollars if he's not even equal to a vending machine? "Greater" is not a linear single value that can go strictly up or down.
How can one think of something that is greater than anything that can be thought? That’s paradoxical because whatever you are thinking could not be this thing.
Greater is vague. Further, the greatest God would may not be able to be imagined by us, or not want to be part of our imagination. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled...
Your argument takes the "words are a social construct" position. Except that's the point. We can imagine it and use a simulacra called words to describe it. Nature has no concept of concepts. But here we are, part of nature. The question is, why is it that people way way smarter than you with way more children than you, also believe in God?
Yes God is a reality and there is no being greater! Here it is, everything that man has made can be improved, whether we talking medicine, transportation, weapons, you name it and you will find its improved on. If the God of the Bible is man made up by man, then improve on him. I’ll wait!
Bro the universe is so vast and sophisticated that even a fraction change in a number can have catastrophic changes so yeah it's a creation, It didn't simply exist, because if you solely think the universe only existed without a reason then why is it so stable and not chaotic, why is our planet is placed in such unique system? If there is no god then why humans just existed?
I think reality puts restrictions for how far things in our mind can exist god can't move faster than light if he has the greatest mass so it's like this thing can only exist in imagination unless it's not the greatest but that doesn't make it what we call "god" What do u think?
God is more than concept. Our concept of Him no matter how great is always less than the actual God. Jesus is perfect in the MORAL sense. The same is true of God. In an immoral world it is hard to conceive the idea. There are many great arguments for God, the problem of evil is the best one AGAINST Him, but if that's the best then in my opinion God is real. If evil exists which many will point out it does, then GOOD exists and if those concepts that are above the knowledge of man exist WITHOUT OUR HELP, then GOD exists without our help too. It just makes sense to me.
It definitely requires a lot of rereading. I first heard of this argument on the philosophy podcast PhilosophizeThis and he explained it much better than me so I'd recommend checking them out as well.
Here is my alleged opinion. It can be wrong though. This is based off of both your claim for a possible loophole and the claim in the video by the person in history. 1. "God is the embody by which no Supra- prefix can be attached to reach another tier of occupational occupancy." 2. "God has already ran through every possible loop that does not conflict with said occupation, so we don't have to; to place a loop-less God except for its conception is to place the greatest God." 3. "God would cast the shell of the imperfections of being proxy to a reality aside by having no possible way to attach a 'Supra-' to it to lead to anything existing being named; if you can place it down to reality yet up to thoughts, you can place it up to reality yet down to thoughts. No time is wasted in the presence of God."
Seems like circular reasoning with extra steps to me, and i am a believer. A good argument for God for me is Jesus life. The strongest argument from the atheist community is to call it a legend, which is less likely since the content of the text of the New Testament does not follow the standard of legendary content, as the book itself and the way the reading indicates, it is a testimony, not a fairy tale.
Personally, i have no qualms with the term "greater." I understand it in set theory terms; god is a set of all sets. I do have an issue with the term "reality", if we stay in the set theory, reality is a set that contains the minds and all their contents. There is no moat between reality and the mind, the mind exists entirely within the confines of reality. Take a mind concept such as honour. It does not exist outside of the mind, yet it has profound effects in the world where it is imagined into reality
Well your perfect image of a rock would be even more perfect if it's real so if God by Anselm's definition nothing that is greater therefore he's real, so yeah that's why perfect would be real, my issue with the argument tho it assumes that God must be perfect and you can simply say a perfect island must exist bc I can think of the most perfect island
God can be thought of. But he cannot be imagined or comprehended. I believe in God, but that argument for God's existence actually disproves God's existence, because it contradicts God's nature xddd (of course it works specifically for the Christian God, or one defined similarly, it may not work for other gods)
Phillip Mainlander still the GOAT btw. You could follow up on him with a video on Petere Zapffe or Emil Cioran. I would just say, maybe don't use vaguley transphobic jokes about "palestinian men who think they're women" because it means this video won't get shown in any academic context.
So you have to first believe that something exists before one can understand it. It's not a matter of existing or not, but a subjective take on understanding an assumed existence.
Argument is invalid unless you can define what it means for A to be greater than B in imagination. If God is greater than all other things, what does greater mean EXACTLY. What is the metric in which god is greater? If there is no metric then are we just assuming god is greater, but greater having no meaning/metric, makes the whole argument meaningless. And yet if we define a metric by which god is greater, we are still relying on assumption. What exactly is imagination and consciousness, these have assumed meanings and nothing more. Greater in imagination is subjective and meaningless. Here you are just shifting the indescribability of god onto the word "greater(in imagination)" then we have to find a definition for greater than would satisfy "god is greater than all things", but we just cant do that. Why are people obsessed with trying to prove things that are clearly not provable with words. Language has limits. The argument also mixes up being greater in reality and greater in thought. Is thought a subset of reality? Why is something in reality greater than in thought? Too much woo in this argument to take it seriously
These arguments violate sound logic and yet the good ones work. The reason the good ones work is because they make you rethink the definition of God. Most people who don't believe in God don't believe in a bad definition of God.
If God is the greatest thing that exists and the greatest thing that exists is real, then if an omnipotent being does exist then God is that being. If it doesn't exist then God isn't omnipotent. Theres no argument here for why God should have any "godly" traits, God would only be the best thing thats real, he would only be an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being if that being existed. This definition of God would definetely exist, but this isn't what a God is.
For me, the argument just proves that the something with that definition is impossible to exist. Surely, you can just imagine a being greater by god by saying "ok, I imagine a being which can beat god in a fight". It's like saying infinity is an integer
It won't work. The argument works not because it proves God but because it proves a reality without God can't exist. We use the ontological argument for all kinds of things like logic maths consciousness truth etc. so if God is defined as something which there is nothing greater then what you are proposing is a being greater than that which is nothing greater. Which means there is a contradiction in your definition which would mean the ontological argument would deem your being not as necessary or contingent but as impossible.
Assumptions assumptions and more assumptions. Also comes from a western theological view of a one supreme god. Is god part of a universe? If he is then he cannot be greater than the universe itself, then is he truly the god if the universe is greater than him? His whole argument is a mental gymnastic to confirm his bias.
God being a great thing is insufficient. By that logic heaven is God, because it's a conceot of a greater place than anywhere in this universe. God being the most powerful thing or the first thing make sense.
So did Anselm end up arguing against the god of any specific religion or denomination? Cause I haven't found a denomination that defines god in such a way that it's not easy to think of a greater one. Now there's thousands of religions/denominations, so I can't say I've individually evaluated all of them, but for one, since there's imperfections in our world, a god that created a world without these imperfections would be greater than one who created a world with imperfections, so our existence ontologically disproves any god who would have created us, cause an ontological god would not have created us, they would have created a world with less imperfections, or no imperfections.
The problem is that his argument doesn't prove that god is the greatest thing, just that _if_ he existed, he would be the greatest thing. You can always go in the opposite direction, well, if god isn't real and in order for something to be the greatest thing it has to be real, then god must not be the greatest thing. It actually becomes an optimization problem, your goal now is no longer to create the most perfect idea, but the best idea that can be actualized into reality, so the greatest thing wouldn't be something that has all the perfect characteristics, but something that has just enough perfect characteristics to be still able to exist in practice. And what is that limit of perfection ? well, if god exists, then there is no limit and god is the greatest thing. If god does not exist then there is a limit to be found and the greatest thing is something else
The reason that the argument is valid is because of the unity of ontology and epistemology in the essence of God. As you go higher in epistemology (perfection in understanding) you get horizontally closer to ontology (perfection in existence).
I have never heard an argument for god’s existence that does not presuppose god’s existence.
Perhaps it's not the arguments that presuppose God's existence, but you presupposing they do.
@@ForrestTheChad
Put up an argument and we’ll see.
@@avishevin1976
You mean presuppose the definition of God?
@@amAntidisestablishmentarianist
No.
@@avishevin1976
Lol, If it is possible to presuppose God's existence without it being only a definition or concept, then perhaps he exists. 😏
Shout out to Popeyes Combo Box
Bro get the popeyes app and it's cheaper to get the 3 piece tender combo than w/o the app.
@@PhilosophyToons Fuck yeah, downloading now. May your days be filled with cane sugar sweet tea and cajun sparkle seasoning
My personal critique is that Anselm's reasoning has the same fallacious argumentation as Pascale's Wager, in that, you can essentially make the argument for most any presumably non-material entity other than God.
For example, I can say, "I think that the concept of invisible omnipotent gnomes living beneath the surface of the Earth is the greatest thought one can think. Therefore, all powerful invisible gnomes must exist in reality if I truly believe them to be the "greatest" 😅
My point is, I suppose, that even within the realm of religion, human subjectivity still plays a significant role
In that case I guess the gnomes would be "God". Maybe not the Christian God that Anselm is hoping for but if we're flexible w our definition of God then anything supreme like that can essentially be God.
@@PhilosophyToons well in that case, let's hope the gnomes are forgiving with regard to blasphemy
thats a misunderstanding of the argument - "invisble gnomes" is a restrictive concept which prescribes certain limitations of form and being, therefore anything containing invisble gnomes as an ontological descriptor is already not the greatest thought one can think.
The agrument is that the highest thing we can think is something omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent - just by the sheer definition of the greates thought as the thought of the utterly all encompassing highest principle of everything, which we call god. - so the argument is not that we have this thought that we call god und just proclaim it as the greatest thought - its the other way around in that we identify the greatest thought and we call this thought/concept god.
@@sollbruchstelleamknicklich9495 What I don't understand is why the entity needs to be omnibenevolent? Why not an omnimalevolent god? If the entity's conception of good happens to be our conception of evil, wouldn't the argument still work from that entity's perspective?
@@basedbasepair8664 This is one of those questions that is really hard to answer in any categorical way. From the outset, I think we run an into an error of thought when we think of gods/God as entities (or entity). The reason for that largely ties into Heidegger's criticism of western metaphysics since Plato. We should rather think of them more as a Being (again, in a Heideggerian or phenomenological sense) rather than entities.
It's not that it (God) inherently 'needs' to be omnibenevolent -- it's that, if we human beings want to thrive and attain higher and more expansive states of consciousness, then an omnibenevolent conception of an ultimate transcendent Being is the only game in town. No civilization ever thrived worshipping Bhaal (for my D&D nerds) -- because the worship of such (omni)malevolent entities, for some 'universal reason' - ends up leading toward the disintegration of the 'human superorganism', and the loss of higher states of conscious awareness within our minds. In other words, the worship of such beings drives mankind downward to the beast, not upward towards the heavens.
Imo, if you're willing to accept that - then the fact that the structure of our Being is set up in this way, seems to be evidence of a benevolent intelligence of some kind. Of course, God has a dark-side, and in the orthodox Abrahamic traditions - that's Satan. God is the oneness of all beings (i.e unity, non-duality, etc.), Satan is the one experiencing itself as many beings (separation, duality, etc.).
Difficult concepts to get across, but hopefully that given an idea.
Basically, define god as something that must exist, therefore, he exists 🤯
That is because of the unity of ontology and epistemology in the essence of God. As you go higher in epistemology (perfection in understanding) you get horizontally closer to ontology (perfection in existence).
No we define God as he is in the Bible and then test it ontologically. Also there are a few ontological arguments many better than this one.
The point is you can define God as something that must exist. You can't define a unicorn or pizza as something that must exist
Not quite. The idea is that if you agree with his premises, you should logically agree with his conclusion. I know, it’s a bit mind-bending 🤯.
The argument can be summarized like this:
*1.* God is defined as the greatest conceivable being-nothing greater can be imagined.
*2.* Existing in both the mind and reality is greater than existing only in the mind.
*Conclusion:* Therefore, God must exist in reality, since a God who exists only in the mind wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being.
Now, if you agree with *Premises 1* and *2* , then yes, God must exist. However, you can disagree with Premise 2 by arguing that there’s no direct reason why existing in both the mind and reality should be considered 'greater' than existing only in the mind. You can also disagree with the first one, saying that God is actually another thing etc.
@@abrarahmad-mw4dk Yes, you kinda can. Because unicorn and pizzas exists... in reality and in your mind. Because your mind is in reality.
If you think about an unicorn, and i take a snapshot of your brain, we could find out the shape of the information of the unicorn in your brain. So the unicorn might not exists like a white horse with a horn in the african jungle, but the Unicorn, the thing that you are thinking the moment you are thinking about the unicorn does exists in reality AND MUST EXIST in reality.
Yay, I learned something new today.
My critique of this argument is that I find God's existence to be linked in some way to consciousness. If a person's consciousness were a manifestation/creation of God's, then that consciousness must also be greater than all conceivable consciousnesses. In other words, consciousness would be infinite and include every possible consciousness in reality. But that is most certainly not true because my consciousness follows rules and has clear boundaries (for example: I perceive to always be living in a state of objective reality. If my mind were infinite, then bizarre things would be happening all the time and it wouldn't make sense). Therefore, God has to be finite and can't be as great as possible as the argument states.
@@ourdivinemouseoverlord3308 it also leads one to think "is it true that thinking God to be the greatest makes God the greatest, or is thinking about the very thinking even greater?"
So in order to be "something than which nothing greater can be thought" this consciousness needs to think infinite thoughts in order to compare it?
Saying that human consciousness, if derived from God, would lead to bizarre phenomena is wrong. The limits and boundaries of human consciousness are appropriate to our finite nature, not a reflection of God’s limitations. God's infinity means He transcends our understanding, but He can create finite beings with limited experiences without diminishing His own greatness. Thus, the finite nature of human consciousness does not imply that God is finite but instead highlights the difference between the Creator and the created.
God's consciousness must be separate from ours in order to be maximally great, otherwise He's dependent on creation and also on finite things. I don't think infinite consciousness necessarily includes all finite consciousnesses, just that it must be aware of everything which exists and be absolutely pure. Consciousness as an idea is the ability to perceive, and thus the greatest consciousness would just need to perceive all things without impediment.
is there even a reality first of all??
I'm tired of saying this, but the fundament of most world religions is faith. If the existence of a god can be proven based on evidence then all faith is redundant.. and religion would be a science.
Exactly, doesn't make much sense to try to "prove" the existence of a god
Well, Theology is a science. But that is separated.
People been talking about gods before any religions started
And then there’s been plenty groups that believe direct knowledge or experience is obtainable
I don’t understand the opposition to searching for reliability in the multitude of worldviews.
It's not. The modern words faith doesn't mean the same thing it did back them. The Greek word in the Bible translated as faith is pistus. It essentially means to rely on to have reliable evidence. This is why pistus is the root world for ePISTEmology or the Greek word for knowledge. Also Latin words like confidence have a root of the Latin word for faith. Faith being a belief without evidence is more of a modern concept that a biblical one. I think the best translation of pistus is probably the word trust. If you read the bible the word faith as meaning to believe without evidence makes no sense. As he constantly says or faith is based on it and if Jesus is false then so is our faith. Paul constantly involves evidence and asks others to verify it. You are making a equivocation fallacy.
Alright here is my attempt at a proper response:
Assumption 1: God is something that which nothing greater can be thought.
Already we run into the bogus use of the word greater, what metric are we using by which god is greater? Or are we just using words without meanings now?
Assuming the statement to be true anyway.
Next the author attempts to separate mind and reality, which is another assumption. We havent defined reality or thought, how are they connected and are they connected at all?
Now the author assumes the following: thing X is greater if it exists in reality and the mind, than Y which exists in mind only.
Here we have a big problem, we need to know what metric we are using to define greater, currently the statement has no meaning.
How can we compare objects greatness in reality to objects greatness in the mind. How are the mind and reality connected? And what even is reality and the mind? A host of problems have already been identified. Is reality created by the mind, or is the mind situated within reality? How can you prove either case?
Then we run into a glaring logical error. We are trying to say, for X to be the greatest thought, X must exist in reality.
It is a logical leap to assume there exists a greatest thought, considering we dont even know what greater means in this context.
Additionally, we assumed it is greater to exist in thought and reality, than thought alone. However, the greatest of thoughts doesnt need to exist in reality, because it is the greatest THOUGHT. If X exists in thought and reality it is greater than Y which exists in thought alone. But the metrics for being greater here are DIFFERENT.
We are saying X is greater than Y as an object because it exists in reality. But this has no bearing on which is the greater thought. Example:
-you think you win the lottery, but in reality, you win nothing. Then we compare the thoughts, so the author would have us believe that the thought of losing the lottery is greater than the thought of winning. Already the word greater is losing meaning that is never had in the first place.
Like earlier mentioned, comparing the greatness of thoughts is not even a definable operation, therefore is meaningless. It is impossible to order the set of "complex numbers", which are relatively easy to understand.
Thoughts are incredibly complicated in comparison, to the point they have an assumed definition, ordering thoughts which are poorly defined objects in terms of greatness is entirely subjective and impossible in a general sense. Overall, the argument gets a 0 from me. Like any attempt to prove or disprove god, cant even come up with a good definition and completely defeats the point of faith.
Understandable, thank you and have a great day.
I think my problem is one that a lot of people have already said in one way or another, but why does acknowledging that it would be greater for something to exist in reality make it real? Like... That's not cause and effect. That's just wishful thinking.
Simply because it's not. The ontological argument doesn't really prove God in of itself. If it did it would be circular. What it does is prove a universe without God in impossible. Therefore God existing is the only other choice. God being greater is just defining God. You can put any definition into the ontological argument and get one of three answers. Either it is impossible for it to not exist. Like logic truth maths God consciousness etc. It is contingent which means it is possible but relys on other things to also exist. Or it is impossible which means is can not exist. It's not wishful thinking it is logically thinking.
That's your problem. If it's not real yet, then you're just not imagining hard enough.
the idea is that God is the being which has no greater thing above it so since existence is better then non-existence Anselm says that it has to exist for it to have no greater being so by necessity it must exist rather then not exist.
Kants critique of this was pretty good
This intro was amazing! Really powerful hook. Good job man.
Plato would say that things which can only be thought are greater than the things which can be both thought of, and exist in reality. Because the things that exist in reality are mere copies or iterations of the Forms of the things, and degradations of them. The Forms are apprehended by the intellect alone, and are eternal in nature, which makes them superior to physical objects, which are at best copies of the Forms, and subject to change and disintegration.
For Plato, God is apprehended by the Intellect alone, since God is nothing else but the Form of The Good, towards which the Philosopher keeps his mind constantly focused. For Plato, a God that existed "in reality" would be either nonsense or a degradation.
this sounds similar to my shoddy recollection of one of descarte's meditations. did descarte "repurpose" this argument?
3:13 this is the part which I disagree with.
To us it seems very intuitive that existing is better than not existing, but I don't see how we could logically prove that. Yes the painter would LOVE their painting to exist but the painter's feelings towards existence doesn't logically justify that existence is better than non-existance.
I'm also not convinced we can confidently say that we have thought of the being that which nothing greater can be thought of. We're finite beings and as a consequence of this, we'll always be limited in our thinking and perception. So whatever we conclude as being "that which nothing greater can be thought of" is just the limits of our finite minds.
Overall, I really like this argument, even as an atheist, I think it's a nice mind puzzle everyone can engage in and think through. The arguments for god really become cool thought experiments when you detach your emotions from them. I used to get so annoyed at arguments for god and immediately have a hostile attudie and try to find a way to disprove them. I don't care now, at least not emotionally, so I have a good time with them and talking to people. If anyone would like to discuss anything I've talked about here, reply and let's have a convo! Please just write your replies as simple as you can because this is already a confusing topic and I'm bad at reading lol
I met some very outspoken atheist who had no interest in talking, but only disproving, as you said. Most often with ridicule and insults.
So it's always good to see people who choose a different position than outright conflict.
I'd like to recommend you for that, and I agree that your counter argument is sound.
@@verhygo4844 Every honest person who engages with these topics, atheist or theist, MUST keep in mind Socrates' quote, "The only thing I know, is that I know nothing" otherwise it will just turn into a battle and not an actual discussion aimed at reaching truth or relative agreement.
It's really important to detach ourselves emotionally with our positions and beliefs. It's really hard, but possible. Once we aren't emotionally tied to our beliefs we can fully and honestly examine them without getting into a fight with someone.
Thanks for the reply! 💛
I do think you are right. But what you have to understand is that this is a older version of the ontological argument. Greater is not necessarily the best word to use. To put it in better terms that which is the least contingent of all things. Essentially a thing that causes other things to exist but doesn't itself rely on anything. Most Christians see God as actualization or the platonic property of existence. So the bible talks a lot about who God is but not what he is.but we see God defined this way. So we plug it into the ontological argument which I want to add is not just used to prove God but other things as well like logic.
@@mitslev4043 God is also often defined as the beginning and the end in scriptures.
Looking at this statement from purely a conceptual level, we recognize everything to be defined through its limitations. So when anyone searches the understanding of how these limitations interact with one another, they inevitably come to question how these limitations came to be in the first place and why they interact with one another in the way that they do.
In science, we find this very thought reflected. Culminating in the origin of the universe through the big bang. The emergence of all matter. Time and space.
Though we intuitively understand concepts to exist outside the limitations of time and space, we currently have no way to confirm that the material emerged from the immaterial. And not the other way around.
By the very nature of science, a, before the beginning of time, is therefore impossible to investigate with its currently available methods. As would be the mapping of concepts.
Though, I find that ultimately a distinction that misses its point.
As humans, we continue to exist, or at least our consciousness, only in relation to the immaterial. To understand the origin of all limitations or define it as our creator, even if not in a religious sense, still seems accurate. Without a beginning and end to our thoughts, or all concepts they are comprised of, we can't exist.
Distinctions between concepts are necessary for us to communicate, rationalize, and interact with the material world around us. If man-made concepts like money or concepts of hunger and thirst, that precede our conscious efforts as a species. Consciousness is a narrative experience and requires structure to exist.
Just makes me wonder if there's grammar to it...
@@verhygo4844 the thing is conceptual things are the only candidates for what physical matter came from. Physical things are by definition contingent and metaphysics things are not. And we use ontological arguments to show that some conceptual things exist by necessity and proceed to give rise to other concepts. So I thing it's safe to say concepts didn't come from matter at least not all of them. How things actually actualize physically is still a mystery. The thing about it is that God is not defined by his limitations but lack there of. Technically speaking the only limitations God has are the logically impossible and logically impossible things are not considered thing. They are just called things because it's the easiest way to say it in English. So the "limitations" of God are none existent. In other words words only have meaning when they relate to something that is real but when it is impossible it has no meaning. The same way the words tree, coffee, jumping, and halo all have meaning but if you said the sentence " tree coffee jumping halo" despite its part haveimg meaning the sentence as a while becomes meaningless. When God limit are only what is logical that makes everything he can't do illogical or in other words meaningless or none existent.
Also you a wrong about defining God as the beginning and the end. Beginning and end are referencing the scriptures before about the Alpha and Omega the first and last letter of the Greek alphabet which is a reference to John 1:1 which is a reference to Genesis 1:1. In Genesis in the original Hebrew you from the first and last letter of the Hebrew alphabet which God used to speak all things into creation. The beginning and the end is referring to the idea that God is the creator of all things not defining but rather describing his actions. Im this instance it is symbolic of him reasserting his sovereignty over the whole of his creation begining to end.
Awesome video! Let's dive into it a little bit (more) with a couple words: _synergy_ and _gestalt._ _Synergy_ is when the parts of a machine/group work together to create more output as a whole (than would be produced by the combined totals of the individual components). _Gestalt,_ similarly to synergy, is when the overarching functions of a system (or group of systems) combine to create something "greater than the sum of its parts". In this particular concept (e.g. the ontological argument for the _"mandatory"_ existence of a "greater" being), _GOD_ would be the combined aspects of synergy, observation, and the resulting _gestalt_ created by said synergies. TL;DR- Define "God" as "everything that exists" plus "the awareness of existence" to emulate a cosmopantheistic entity that is "more than just reality". Even shorter TL;DR- The Universe is God and we are all parts within.
So… It sounds like he’s advocating for pantheism
@@BrytonBand With a simulation twist and an all-inclusive entity (pun intended?), it's like pantheism mixed with philosophical additives. Lol (Like a zeitgeist that went Super Saiyan.)
So the counter argument is that:
If one can imagine a something that which nothing greater can be thought at the same time that isn't limited by a need to have physical reality in order to be the greatest though, then that wil be greater than the one that existing in both in reality and in the thought.
Greater is that a thing that exists in reality and in mind is more than the thing that exists in mind. By definition the thing that exists in mind and in reality is greater because it is more than the thing that only exists in mind.
I am reminded of Puddleglum's speech after burning his feet in the enchanted fire (The Silver Chair by C.S. Lewis).
A better one to deal with would be the Modal Ontological Argument by Alvin Plantinga. There has been a little bit of development in the last few hundred years, and it's probably best to look at some more contemporary versions of the arguments and see how they hold up.
I think the modal ontological argument's more convoluted, but just as bad. It basically operates by conflating different meanings of possible, I think. By "possible" we can mean something's objectively possible--there's no law of reality preventing it from being so--or we could just mean it's possible as far as I know--there's nothing that I know that prevents it from being so. If you pick one meaning and use it consistently, then the modal ontological argument doesn't work.
@@jamesc3505 I disagree, I think the MOA uses the first definition you mentioned, and then consistently follows it to the logical end. I don't think it equivocates at any point. It does mean that the first premise ("It is possible that a maximally great being exists") is TAKEN by some people at first to mean the "for all we know" type of sense, and that's exactly not what it means. So, if one is thinking of it in that kind of sense, then I can understand how it feels like an equivocation has been done here, because that's how it felt to me at first too.
I really really struggled with this. I thought, how is this not just question begging? How is this not just defining God into existence? How are brilliant minds like Dr. William Lane Craig and Michael Jones of Inspiring philosophy taking this so seriously? How is Plantinga taking this seriously?
But I decided to really listen to them explain it a few times, and to my genuine shock, I came away from it actually excited about the argument.
I think it's rock solid, because it's perfectly logically valid, and the only contentious premise is, in fact, the first one. Everything else is simply the logical outworking of the soundness of the first premise.
It IS a more serious assertion than one initially takes it as. It really is the stronger sense of possible, the kind of "no logical incoherence to forbid it" sense, but after that's established as being actually possible, it follows directly that God HAS TO exist. If it's impossible for him to exist because of some logical contradiction, like a square circle, then, obviously God cannot exist, but if it isn't impossible, it's impossible for Him not to, as shocking as that sounds.
@@WillEhrendreich: We don't just need there to be no logical incoherence to forbid it. There's no logical incoherence to forbid that Russell's teapot is objectively necessary. No logical incoherence is a low bar. We need it to be consistent with the fundamental underlying nature of reality. To determine that, we'd need to prove what the fundamental underlying nature of reality is. And if we could do that, I expect we'd probably already know if there's a god anyway.
My issue with this is that it's akin to trying to imagine "the highest possible integer, that which no other higher integer exists". This number does not exist because any possibility can be refuted by simply adding one to it. The same can be said for god. Any "greatest possible being" can be proven to not exist by imagining an even greater being which creates said being.
The problem is the definition of a being greater than the greatest is contradictory. Rendering it impossible. Also it invokes the law of identity. If you imagine a greater being it's not greater than the greatest. It is the greatest and is therefore God. Also integers go on forever. Qualities don't necessarily have to. Like the color red. You can get more or less red but you can't get infinitely more red. At some point a thing is just 100% red.
I have two additional problems with this argument:
The first is that it treats existence as a trait, a quality things possess.
This essentially mean we just define, in a round about way, that existence is a trait of God and therefore it exists. God exists and therefore it exists.
In the same way, I could define hadcarnoth as a special kind of unicorn that is greater and more awesome than any other beast that can be thought. But wait, wouldn't it be more awesome if it actually existed? Therefore hadcarnoth has to exist and since it is a type of unicorn it means unicorns exist. Do you see the absurdity?
Another problem is the definition. Actually, no, God is not the greatest thing that can be thought because most conceptions of God are that it is beyond our human mind ability to grasp and therefore God cannot be thought.
Just one crux, mind and realty are not separated.
Additionally, the relationship between mind and reality cannot be established. Is reality entirely a construct of consciousness/mind, or is the mind situated within some reality? Or are both cases false somehow. The whole argument in this video is non logical
Hermaeus Mora thumbnail??
This is, pure and simple, sophistry. Anselm uses rhetoric to come up with an argument that sounds like it *could* be true. For one thing, "God must be personal because he has to have the highest level of person-hood" is ludicrous prima facie, because God must also have the highest level of imperson-hood. Secondly, if God is the "greatest" of everything, then he's also "the greatest evil" in which case he's not worthy of being called a benevolent god (Theodicy argument). Finally, the linear concept of "reality must be dependent upon one thing" is flawed, because Anselm doesn't address the theme of interdependence which is common in eastern religion; where all of reality is dependent on all other aspects of reality, and thus there is nothing that can be conceived of as "greater than everything".
The argument starts from the assumption that god is greater than anything one can think about. Ignoring the bogus use of "greater", if we find a contradiction down the line of logic, it is the initial assumption that is false, unless you make other assumptions that are unrelated to that assumption. In this case the use of reducto ad absurdum is incorrect. There are a host of other issues you could pick apart.
I am a convinced Theist and I love the ontological argument because it's made me scratch my head over and over again, but personally I don't buy it. I think Anselm's original argument is intriguing, but the modal version of the modern argument of the argument is probably the most captivating. I think that my core objection is that, while it follows that if God exists, He cannot fail to exist, I don't think actually gets us to establishing His actual existence. If God exists, He indeed does exist in every possible world, but only if He does exist can He not fail to exist and we can conceive of a world in which He does not exist, at least on principle. I could be misunderstanding the argument, but I'm still probably going to revisit it over and over again and I may change my mind one day. It's just so perplexing.
That's a different ontological argument. But I agree that God doesn't seem to have the same kind of necessity that the number 2 or the law of non contradiction do. We can make clear predictions of what a "no god" world would be like. Fine tuning relies on this.
@@goldenalt3166 Of course, but I guess I'm more familiar with the spinoff than the original. I lean towards thinking that a world with no God would look a certain way, but I think you need additional and complicated arguments to show this.
@@Oatmeal_Mann If you can even conceive of this scenario, it seems that the "god is necessary" premise fails.
Reposting what I posted elsewhere:
I think the modal ontological argument's more convoluted, but just as bad. It basically operates by conflating different meanings of possible, I think. By "possible" we can mean something's objectively possible--there's no law of reality preventing it from being so--or we could just mean it's possible as far as I know--there's nothing that I know that prevents it from being so. If you pick one meaning and use it consistently, then the modal ontological argument doesn't work.
@@jamesc3505 I agree. I think that it's an interesting argument, but I just don't buy that God's existence being "possible" according to one definition of the word means that it's possible in the other way that something can be possible. The jump is too far for me.
This is kinda like defining ought as the ultimate defining force of actual things in reality, which i've contemplated.
God could be because he should be because he is what ought to be, and that ought is plausible answer to why some things exist rather than other things since rationality can only explain things on the basis of logistics which are contingent on something to be logical of not why there is in the first place.
The ontological argument don't work for me cuz for something to be greater in reality and mind means that "greatness" as a concept exists, which is a concept that I only subscribe to because I believe in god already.
My critique is that the moment you say what exist in both reality and imagination are greater than what only exist only in the mind, you automatically place reality limitations on your imagination
So basically: "Thought + Reality = Greater (god)"
But what if I imagine there to be something that is greater with only "Thought" that doesn't need the "Reality" part to be "greater?"
What I'm saying is that it's a bit of a leap of logic to say you need the "Exists in reality" part to make something "greater."
In modern terms we say greater as in the thing by which holds the least contingency. Which would mean that it is self created so to speak.
Nothing more than philosophical gymnastics to come to the conclusion they desire!
And as time goes on the Stockholm syndrome of religious peoples slavery to their God is astounding!
Some of these people in the comments probably believe that time travel (other than forward) exists.
hermaeus mora
Glad someone caught that
actually the TAG (transcendental argument for God)is the most unique imo, and the strongest.
The ability to think about something doesn’t affect the likelihood that it actually exists
You are right. What the ontological argument does is take something we can think of and asks not if it can exist but if it can not exist. We use the ontological argument to prove all kinds of things. Like truth logic maths consciousness etc. it's a way of testing the existence of a thing.
What if what your thinking of thought itself, in that case, merely by you thinking, the thought itself really does exist in so far as there is a thought that is thought about.
The argument does nothing but make assumptions and fail to define half the words used. Like any argument trying to prove or disprove god, FAIL
@@peamutbubber it's the same argument we use to prove things like maths logic truth and consciousness. And you can find ontological arguments where they define all their terms. If you want to be technical all arguments fail. Look up the Munchausen trilemma
@@peamutbubber: "The argument does nothing but make assumptions and fail to define half the words used. Like any argument trying to prove or disprove god, FAIL"
I wouldn't say it's like any argument. I think the ontological argument and modal ontological argument for a god's existence, together with the god rock paradox against a god's existence are in their own special category of stupid.
"Most unique" is not correct English. "Unique" is an absolute, it is mot modifiable. It means "one of a kind." A thing cannot be "most one of a kind." A thing is "one of a kind" or it is not. You need another adjective for which your argument is the most of.
Unique can also be a universal and apply to anything like red can, you are both unique because you are the only you there is, but in a larger context not unique as you are 1 in 8 billion, so a most unique person would be unique in every context rather that a single one. To say you are unique can be true, while a person which has abilities that surpass others that are unique, such as Micheal Jordan amongst professional basketball players could be described as, the NBA is full of unique talents, but Micheal Jordan is the most unique off them all while relating talents to normal people who are individually unique, but because they can still be grouped, there can be a more so case. God is this case a He is the most unique concept while concepts are themselves unique, but God would be so in all cases unique amongst the unique, hence, the most
Just because we can define something as necessarily having a certain property in order to be what we imagine doesn't mean there has to be a real thing that fits that definition. We imagine the Hulk as the strongest one there is, but in reality I'm stronger -- I can lift some amount of weight, but as a fictional character he can't lift any. For something that existed in reality to be the Hulk, it would have to be stronger than me, but the Hulk doesn't exist in reality, therefore he doesn't meet that condition. Anselm wants us to accept that the property of existence is an exception, but why?
Therefore, even if we grant that there can be a singular measure of greatness, and that existing in reality is always greater than not existing in reality, the most that proves is that any version of God that actually existed would have the property of existing necessarily. But if God doesn't exist, he doesn't have any of the properties we associate with him in reality, including that one.
I think my critique is that if there is a god, that does not mean it absolutely has to be the “greatest” thing ever.
Indeed, I'm not a philosopher but if this being is omnipotent is he/she locked into its own existence and therefore constrained from ending its own existence?
Well, God is defined as the greatest thing ever for the purposes of this argument. It might not be "your God," but it is the Godlike being this argument attempts to prove.
It's because it's arguing for a specific kind of God. If you were arguing for a god like Zeus who is basically a human with superpowers you would use different arguments. The word God just means anything that's worshiped.
@@mitslev4043 well, not in later formulations, certainly. For Gödel, it's just a Godlike Being
@@RachManJohn yeah. It is different for every argument. It really important to define your terms and stay within the parameters any one argument sets up
2:41 How can God be greater than a billion dollars if he's not even equal to a vending machine? "Greater" is not a linear single value that can go strictly up or down.
How can one think of something that is greater than anything that can be thought? That’s paradoxical because whatever you are thinking could not be this thing.
Greater is vague. Further, the greatest God would may not be able to be imagined by us, or not want to be part of our imagination. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled...
There is nothing greater than a popeyes box combo therefore popeyes is god.
"greatest" doesnt mean anything, if theres no god theres no objective meaning of greatness, so you need god to exist for this argument to work
Your argument takes the "words are a social construct" position. Except that's the point. We can imagine it and use a simulacra called words to describe it. Nature has no concept of concepts. But here we are, part of nature. The question is, why is it that people way way smarter than you with way more children than you, also believe in God?
Yes God is a reality and there is no being greater! Here it is, everything that man has made can be improved, whether we talking medicine, transportation, weapons, you name it and you will find its improved on. If the God of the Bible is man made up by man, then improve on him. I’ll wait!
Bro the universe is so vast and sophisticated that even a fraction change in a number can have catastrophic changes so yeah it's a creation, It didn't simply exist, because if you solely think the universe only existed without a reason then why is it so stable and not chaotic, why is our planet is placed in such unique system? If there is no god then why humans just existed?
What created God? By your logic how could God be perfect without a creator?
Is a good argument, but something feel odd about it but nobody really can say what it is really
I think reality puts restrictions for how far things in our mind can exist god can't move faster than light if he has the greatest mass so it's like this thing can only exist in imagination unless it's not the greatest but that doesn't make it what we call "god"
What do u think?
God is more than concept. Our concept of Him no matter how great is always less than the actual God. Jesus is perfect in the MORAL sense. The same is true of God. In an immoral world it is hard to conceive the idea. There are many great arguments for God, the problem of evil is the best one AGAINST Him, but if that's the best then in my opinion God is real. If evil exists which many will point out it does, then GOOD exists and if those concepts that are above the knowledge of man exist WITHOUT OUR HELP, then GOD exists without our help too. It just makes sense to me.
I don’t understand
It definitely requires a lot of rereading. I first heard of this argument on the philosophy podcast PhilosophizeThis and he explained it much better than me so I'd recommend checking them out as well.
Mind cannot exist without reality. We have learned that this is nonlocal. Think about it.
I love the Concord commentary 😂
Only cool lookin character was the trash can robot
Wtf is that creature in the thumbnail why would god be azathoth
Here is my alleged opinion. It can be wrong though. This is based off of both your claim for a possible loophole and the claim in the video by the person in history.
1. "God is the embody by which no Supra- prefix can be attached to reach another tier of occupational occupancy."
2. "God has already ran through every possible loop that does not conflict with said occupation, so we don't have to; to place a loop-less God except for its conception is to place the greatest God."
3. "God would cast the shell of the imperfections of being proxy to a reality aside by having no possible way to attach a 'Supra-' to it to lead to anything existing being named; if you can place it down to reality yet up to thoughts, you can place it up to reality yet down to thoughts. No time is wasted in the presence of God."
Seems like circular reasoning with extra steps to me, and i am a believer.
A good argument for God for me is Jesus life. The strongest argument from the atheist community is to call it a legend, which is less likely since the content of the text of the New Testament does not follow the standard of legendary content, as the book itself and the way the reading indicates, it is a testimony, not a fairy tale.
Superman exists in my mind, therefore, Superman actually exists. 🤦
bruh did you even watch the video
@@stuartthomas94
That's the quick capsule review of the ontological argument.
@@aisforapple2494 the funniest thing is,
without mind
nothing exists
Personally, i have no qualms with the term "greater." I understand it in set theory terms; god is a set of all sets. I do have an issue with the term "reality", if we stay in the set theory, reality is a set that contains the minds and all their contents. There is no moat between reality and the mind, the mind exists entirely within the confines of reality. Take a mind concept such as honour. It does not exist outside of the mind, yet it has profound effects in the world where it is imagined into reality
Arguing over the validity of God is irrelevant in the broader context of why even Human's chooses to believe in such idea.
Everybody needs a friend. Some people like imaginary ones. To each their own 🤷🏿♂️
Dragons are the coolest things i can think of therefore dragons are real
Check mate
Well your perfect image of a rock would be even more perfect if it's real so if God by Anselm's definition nothing that is greater therefore he's real, so yeah that's why perfect would be real, my issue with the argument tho it assumes that God must be perfect and you can simply say a perfect island must exist bc I can think of the most perfect island
God can be thought of. But he cannot be imagined or comprehended. I believe in God, but that argument for God's existence actually disproves God's existence, because it contradicts God's nature xddd (of course it works specifically for the Christian God, or one defined similarly, it may not work for other gods)
Phillip Mainlander still the GOAT btw. You could follow up on him with a video on Petere Zapffe or Emil Cioran.
I would just say, maybe don't use vaguley transphobic jokes about "palestinian men who think they're women" because it means this video won't get shown in any academic context.
So you have to first believe that something exists before one can understand it. It's not a matter of existing or not, but a subjective take on understanding an assumed existence.
Argument is invalid unless you can define what it means for A to be greater than B in imagination. If God is greater than all other things, what does greater mean EXACTLY. What is the metric in which god is greater? If there is no metric then are we just assuming god is greater, but greater having no meaning/metric, makes the whole argument meaningless. And yet if we define a metric by which god is greater, we are still relying on assumption.
What exactly is imagination and consciousness, these have assumed meanings and nothing more. Greater in imagination is subjective and meaningless.
Here you are just shifting the indescribability of god onto the word "greater(in imagination)" then we have to find a definition for greater than would satisfy "god is greater than all things", but we just cant do that.
Why are people obsessed with trying to prove things that are clearly not provable with words. Language has limits.
The argument also mixes up being greater in reality and greater in thought. Is thought a subset of reality? Why is something in reality greater than in thought? Too much woo in this argument to take it seriously
These arguments violate sound logic and yet the good ones work. The reason the good ones work is because they make you rethink the definition of God. Most people who don't believe in God don't believe in a bad definition of God.
*Doctor successfully do surgery*
Patient: Thanks god!
Doctor:😐
This argument doesn't work for me. If we can come up with something in our minds, we then put it into reality. This can just say God is made up.
If God is the greatest thing that exists and the greatest thing that exists is real, then if an omnipotent being does exist then God is that being. If it doesn't exist then God isn't omnipotent. Theres no argument here for why God should have any "godly" traits, God would only be the best thing thats real, he would only be an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being if that being existed. This definition of God would definetely exist, but this isn't what a God is.
For me, the argument just proves that the something with that definition is impossible to exist. Surely, you can just imagine a being greater by god by saying "ok, I imagine a being which can beat god in a fight". It's like saying infinity is an integer
It won't work. The argument works not because it proves God but because it proves a reality without God can't exist. We use the ontological argument for all kinds of things like logic maths consciousness truth etc. so if God is defined as something which there is nothing greater then what you are proposing is a being greater than that which is nothing greater. Which means there is a contradiction in your definition which would mean the ontological argument would deem your being not as necessary or contingent but as impossible.
how about a thing that can eradicate all human illnesses. surely greater than a god.
Assumptions assumptions and more assumptions. Also comes from a western theological view of a one supreme god. Is god part of a universe? If he is then he cannot be greater than the universe itself, then is he truly the god if the universe is greater than him?
His whole argument is a mental gymnastic to confirm his bias.
God being a great thing is insufficient. By that logic heaven is God, because it's a conceot of a greater place than anywhere in this universe.
God being the most powerful thing or the first thing make sense.
@PhilosophyToons Sydney Sweeney is greater than God 😅😍
It was either gonna be Sydney Sweeney or Jenna Ortega lol
@@PhilosophyToons Difficult choice 🤔
This might be the most stupid argument I have ever heard!
2 minutes and done. His argument is based on a ridiculous assumption. It has, therefore, no credibility.
Which assumption specifically for you?
@@PhilosophyToons "Before any attempts to understand God, he proclaims that he believes in God."
K lil bro💀
@@oceanw9988No, he’s correct, it has no actually logical essence. Something like Aquinas’s Recursive Theory is much better than this.
@@brianjanson3498 If he didn't said that or was an Atheist it would be valid?
So did Anselm end up arguing against the god of any specific religion or denomination? Cause I haven't found a denomination that defines god in such a way that it's not easy to think of a greater one. Now there's thousands of religions/denominations, so I can't say I've individually evaluated all of them, but for one, since there's imperfections in our world, a god that created a world without these imperfections would be greater than one who created a world with imperfections, so our existence ontologically disproves any god who would have created us, cause an ontological god would not have created us, they would have created a world with less imperfections, or no imperfections.
Seems like a nonsense argument
The mind *is* a space of reality then, and thereby, God is whatever the void commands to exist by its nature of apparent nonexistence.
The problem is that his argument doesn't prove that god is the greatest thing, just that _if_ he existed, he would be the greatest thing. You can always go in the opposite direction, well, if god isn't real and in order for something to be the greatest thing it has to be real, then god must not be the greatest thing. It actually becomes an optimization problem, your goal now is no longer to create the most perfect idea, but the best idea that can be actualized into reality, so the greatest thing wouldn't be something that has all the perfect characteristics, but something that has just enough perfect characteristics to be still able to exist in practice. And what is that limit of perfection ? well, if god exists, then there is no limit and god is the greatest thing. If god does not exist then there is a limit to be found and the greatest thing is something else
The reason that the argument is valid is because of the unity of ontology and epistemology in the essence of God. As you go higher in epistemology (perfection in understanding) you get horizontally closer to ontology (perfection in existence).
Nonsensical gibberish.