Ah ! Western philosophy's dream of talking God into existence ! If Plantinga has a donkey, has he talked its hind legs off yet ? I am with Laplace and have no need for any God hypothesis.
There is a possible world where you are not in debt. That is a criterion for the greatest possible world. If it exists in one possible universe, then it must exist in all possible universe, or else it isn't the greatest form. Therefore, you aren't in debt in the actual universe. There. Defines away your debt. Thank me later. *Really, it is that bad.*
@MilesDoyleSalt Did you know Jesus failed to return on a cloud with angels in the days of the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 as promised in Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21?
@@darkofalltradesI think it can be if you want to posit your god has some kind of absolute perfect message and that you assert that god has delivered that message to everyone.
The first time I heard this argument, I thought it was a joke… Anyway, my favorite premise is: “If it exists in some possible worlds, then it must exist in all possible worlds.” Okay… but I can imagine a possible world where he doesn’t exist. This means he is not in ALL possible worlds. And according to the premise, if he’s not in one, he is nowhere.
Given the lack of supporting evidence, a maximally great, yet utterly invisible, unicorn is no less plausible. God believers have been trying to overcome problem of there being no supporting evidence for a very long time.
My big problem with ontological arguments is that they are all filtered through our own preconceptions and prejudices. Ultimately they are egotistical arguments.
@MilesDoyleSalt Zombie swarm of Jerusalem never happened, dude. Bible contains a BUNCH of BS. Those historians? They just say "Christians believe in a guy called Jesus." So freaking what? There are no writings from Jesus. No artifacts from his life. Nothing even written down by ANYONE who met the guy. Do I think there was probably 1 guy whose exploits got turned into the Gospels? Yes. Is a death cult preacher with a small following the Jesus you actually believe in? Or will you accept there isn't, can't be, historical evidence for the divine Jesus rather than the human Jesus?
I think a major criticism of Plantinga's argument is the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument (MOA). The reverse MOA introduces another premise in place of Premise 1: "It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.", and shares the definition of maximally great being. This ends with the conclusion "Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist." The reverse MOA leads one to consider symmetry breakers between this new premise and the existing Premise 1 - removing the rhetorical value of the original argument.
I think the fact that the reverse modal ontological argument, that it is possible a maximally great being does not exist, is equally valid rather undermines the whole thing and puts us right back to needing some form of empirical evidence to back up either claim.
P1. Horses have an even number of legs. P2. Horses have 2 hind legs in back and forelegs in front. That's 6 legs. P3. That's odd number of legs for a horse to have. P4. The only number that's both even and odd is infinite. C. Horses have an infinite number of legs.
I recognized that Anselm's argument was ridiculous way back when I still believed. I still can't believe anyone takes it seriously. Defining God into existence. Sure.
It's possible to define a credible god into existence. You're just going to have to discard criteria that are demanded by various believers who would deny that your definition is a god. That their definition is either so absurd or self-contradictory (or both) that it's ultimately impossible, either eludes them or doesn't concern them.
A "maximally great" subject can be incoherent, depending on the individual surveying it; such as a "maximally great" pizza won't be "maximally great" depending on if someone likes anchovies on their pizza or not.
“A maximally great god-maker must exist and have created all gods from Yhwh to Coyote. This great and mighty Stanandjack therefore must exist in our world.”
I use the idea that, by theist's logic, it is possible that the creator god was created by another god that DIDN'T make the universe. Or I use Eric, the God-Eating Penguin, who eats any and every god. The existence of Eric, the God-Eating Penguin proves that no gods exist because, by definition, if they did, Eric, the God-Eating Penguin would eat them.
@@darkofalltrades Eric The God-Eating penguin is a terrible response because he can easily be shown to be a logically incoherent concept, because the idea that God cannot be eaten is contained in the idea of God, which is in turn contained in the idea of Eric the God-Eating Penguin. I don't think Alvin Plantinga would disagree that the ultimate God might be different from the one who created our world as far as the ontological argument is concerned.
@@Glass-io9bq Regarding Eric the God-Eating Penguin, my intention was to illustrate a reductio ad absurdum to highlight potential issues with the application of the ontological argument. The concept was meant to provoke thought about the implications of extending the argument’s logic to extreme or absurd conclusions. I understand the critique about the logical coherence of Eric the God-Eating Penguin. If the concept is seen as self-contradictory due to the inherent characteristics of the idea of God, then the analogy may have its limitations. The goal was to test the boundaries of the argument’s logic rather than to present a feasible being. Regarding Plantinga, you are correct that his argument focuses on the possibility of a maximally great being and does not necessarily address the specifics of creation or the nature of gods in other contexts.
A maximally great pizza would still fill you up, be delicious, and make sure you didn't gain any weight from eating it. It exists in some possible world. Therefore, it must exist in the actual world, or else it couldn't be a maximally great pizza.
Plantinga's version doesnt address any problems with the ontological argument, but it certainly does obfuscate them. Which realistically is the only qualification possible for an apologist. A+ full marks for Plantinga, he has a completely useless argument, but it SOUNDS smart!
Perverse incentives at work. Apologists aren't rewarded for sound arguments. They're rewarded for presentations that are hard to debunk. The perfect apologetic isn't "this is clearly true" but "I can't show it's wrong".
@@JAMESLEVEE VR has done collabs and similar with a number of other channels, like Paulogia. I believe that's how I found VR back in the day. Anyway, agreed, a collab between them would be fun.
I would love to, but his channel is quite a bit bigger than mine. I need to grow to really get on his radar. Though this is a comment that I recommend go on his comment section, too. If enough people bring me up to him, the more likely he will notice (me sempai).
0:44 "...based on logic and definition..." I prefer to use "axiom" to include "definition" there. Axioms usually reduce the domain of discourse, so even if the conclusions is true it is not universally true, and the use of such arguments to prove the existence of a god cannot prove a universal god. If the argument claims to have universal applicability then it fails. Most _a priori_ arguments have hidden axioms, so the first job of a sceptic is to identify them.
I always despised this argument, it's just defining something into existence without even leading to a particular being. It always struck me as mental masturbation.
I wonder about Plantinga's argument, "maximal excellence" just captures a collection of traits that theists typically associate with their god. Why couldn't we run the same argument with "maximal islandness"?
@@darkofalltrades No it doesn't. What are you even talking about? The concept of an island that exists in all possible worlds makes no sense, insofar as an island is inherently contingent, and we can easily imagine a world wherein there are no islands. Maybe a sufficiently smart skeptic philosopher might be able to defend such a response, but it's far easier to defend that God, if he exists, must be necessary.
@@Glass-io9bq The purpose of the “maximal island” analogy isn’t necessarily to find a perfect one-to-one comparison with Plantinga’s argument, but rather to highlight a potential issue with applying the same logical structure to different concepts. While it’s true that islands are contingent and might not fit neatly into the idea of “maximal greatness,” the analogy serves to question whether the ontological argument’s logic is robust enough to apply universally to any concept of maximal greatness, or if it’s susceptible to similar critiques. The critique seems to focus on the nature of islands versus necessary beings, but my point was to examine whether the form of the argument allows for problematic applications. In other words, if the argument can be extended to concepts that intuitively seem implausible, like a “maximally great island,” it might suggest limitations or potential issues in the argument’s structure or assumptions. In essence, the analogy is a tool for exploring the argument’s boundaries and coherence, not a direct empirical comparison. The focus should be on whether the argument's logical framework holds up across different contexts and concepts. I appreciate the discussion and your thoughtful response!
Conceiving anything "maximally great" is possible if and only if the conceiver is omniscient. By the way, what does "maximally great" really mean? Does it mean "greater than anything and everything" or "as great as possible within certain conditions"? Did some apologist (possibly WLC) use the term in the latter sense? I believe my statement stands in either case.
I am inclined to agree. If one person can't conceive of a god any greater than a certain form, that says nothing about whether another person can conceive of another being even greater than that! This also means that even if we granted the argument 100%, it can not be any currently proposed gods like the god of the bible or the god of Islam. Why? Because I can conceive of a god greater than those.
Anselm's argument has a few implicit assertions, such as existing in reality is greater than only existing in the mind, as well as a very generic notion of "greatness" which honestly serves to obfuscate the subjectivity of the term and thus enable him to use it as if it were in fact objective which is what his argument relies on. It's pretty much an argument from imagination as it wholly relies on one's perceived notions of greatness in order to hold any water. Of course that itself is subjective and thus doesn't lend any credibility to any objective "maximally great being" existing which is the conclusion of his argument. One could easily conceive of a god greater than Plantinga did, one may even argue that the god of some other religion may actually be greater than the Hebrew god all due to the subjectivity of greatness and what it means according to each individual. It fails therefore to overcome the bar of opinion as it is in fact an argument from opinion or at least personal imagination yet seeks to claim objective ground based solely on these subjective imaginations and opinions. We can see how the argument breaks apart when we consider any other "maximally great" things like pizzas, cars, islands and such where the subjectivity in the notion of what is "great" for any individual rises to the fore. Yet another example of how theists have trouble with the fact that not everyone's minds work the same as their or hold the same beliefs as theirs. 7:04 Omnipotence and omniscience together form a logical contradiction where such a being cannot change their minds as that would override their omniscience but not being able to change their minds would mean that they are not omnipotent, thus the 2 terms existing together in a single being would result in that being's existence being logically contradictory. Morality is subjective by all appearances so any definition of anything that relies on morality of any sort is going to be subjective simply based on this notion. Asserting that morality is objective would require a demonstration of such that, frankly, isn't possible. His first definition is already not looking too hot. 8:04 Here it is important to note that the argument doesn't speak for multiversal singularity, a notion where a particular being exists as a single individual entity throughout various multiverses rather than having different versions of itself in each multiverse. This is the case even though Plantinga's god would require multiversal singularity. After all, is there any conflict with the existence of more than one "maximally great" being? According to Plantinga's definitions of what makes a "maximally great being" no. 11:45 The way Plantinga's argument uses the term "possible" seems to be of the broadest scope where any and all things (including contradictory things) may be possible. After all it asserts the possibility of the existence of multiple worlds as well as the concept of maximal greatness, things not even remotely in evidence. Such cannot be transitioned easily to plausibility through reasoning alone, let alone CERTAINTY which is what the conclusion posits.
It begins with the problems I have with the concept of "maximally great being" - I'm not convinced there is one where I can't think of a greater one, at least as long as "greater" is undefined. The multi-omni one has different problems - currently, I think it is incoherent, as all the omni traits are self-contradictory. Also, I question the whole concept of a _necessary_ being, and I'd want to see more about how they define a _possible_ world.
Modal logic is pretty confusing at first, second, and third look. That is one reason why I think Plantinga used the confusing nature of the argument to try to get people to overlook the problems (even if unintentionally).
What's really ironic is that if you actually accept the ontological Argument as true, then you've essentially disproven all of the Abrahamic faiths. The very existence of Christianity and Islam proves conclusively that the god of the Bible isn't the greatest conceivable being, because people have conceived of a being much greater than the God that actually appears in the pages of that book. Further, both Christianity and Islam are subsequently proven false by this argument by the fact that many atheists (myself included) can conceive of a being greater than the God those faiths claim exists. Namely, a god that was capable of creating a world without evil and suffering, but with free will, and actually chose to do so. Indeed, a god that didn't create Hell would literally be infinitely greater than the God of those faiths.
Let's grant that we have defined a maximally great being into existence. Still does not get us to God/Yaweh/Jesus/Allah/Shiva/Jupiter/etc.... We still have facts about reality, and assumptions about maximally great. Only functionally useless ideas of divine beings can fit both.
Clearly, the greatest of all beings is Okami Amaterasu. Origin of all that is good Mother to us all Jumpkicks the source of all evil to get her powers back Cuddly-Wuddly Goodest Girl Feeder of small cute animals Demon slayer extraordinaire The list just keeps going
Philosophers like Anselm or Plantinga would never suggest that they've proven Christianity true (Though no pagan would recognize Jupiter as the greatest conceivable being. The average pagan philosopher in antiquity would recognize Plantinga's God as Plato's "Form of the good" or Aristotle's unmoved mover, or most likely the stoic concept of God).
There is no point in allowing Anselm's Onto to continue past 1 if the person using it can not demonstrate absolute knowledge of everything in the universe.
Fails every time. I'm amazed this Anselm guy is considered a doer of deepity thinks, he seems a bit wishful to me. By his logic we can "prove" we're all sharks. Not just sharks, maximally great sharks! Give me a break.
Hume's criticism of Anselm is basically a less specified version of Kant's criticism, as far as I can tell (Though I'm only really familiar with Kant's formulation). There are arguments for or against the island-thing, but the main reason people today reject the argument is because they intuitively agree with Kant. That said, we should be aware that the main difference is that Anselm was working within a very different ontological worldview, wherein it definitely makes sense to think that existence or "being" can be an intrinsic property of a concept. So it's less that Kant simply pointed out an obvious truth that Anselm would've/should've recognized, and more that he defends an overall different viewpoint where Anselm's argument doesn't makes sense. In other words, you do ultimately have to defend the view that existence can't be an analytic predicate (Nobody's denying that it's a predicate, the question is whether that predicate is synthetic or analytic). The way you criticize the definition is honestly very uncompelling, and accidentally provides a response to the "island" or "unicorn" example. The thing about "the greatest conceivable being" is that such a being would be maximally great in all ways, whereas "The greatest conceivable X" is more likely to suffer from this "subjectivity" (Although Anselm obviously wasn't a moral subjectivist) objection. Alvin Plantinga, for the record, never claimed that his argument should convince a skeptic that God exists, at least not on its own. He's mainly responding to philosophers who argue that theism is irrational, and for my money its biggest contribution is proving that the existence of God is a question about the fundamental nature of reality, and thus distinct from (For example) Russell's celestial teapot. This really weakens the "Begging the question" accusation (Note that it's harder to define "Begging the question" than you might think. Certainly having a single premise isn't begging the question, because it's done all the time in formal logic). The accusations of equivocation and special pleading are just painful. Some people certainly equivocate the technical meaning of "possible" and the epistemic colloquial sense, but neither Plantinga nor any other serious philosopher has tried to do that. Similarly, there are real (And very compelling) arguments for why a "Maximally great pizza" is genuinely different from God, none of which amount to special pleading. You should be very, very careful about accusing one of the smartest living philosophers of committing basic logical fallacies.
I appreciate the depth of your response and the effort you’ve put into keeping me honest. I must say you clearly have a strong grasp of the subject. I stand by my original points, though I recognize that there are differing perspectives, and a more detailed discussion could be valuable in the future. While I may have differing views on some aspects, I agree that some subjectivity might be involved in our interpretations.
As far as I'm concerned, Alvin's argument is just polishing a turd. He doesn't actually fix the original argument, just adds new problems. Just like Low Bar Bill does with the Kalam.
Came here after hearing your colab with Scarlett, and you did a good job of showing where these arguments fail. As someone who earned a degree in philosophy 40 + years ago, I understand the need to keep the mind sharp. But it might be a little too easy to show where these kinda silly arguments for a deity fail in their premises. Please keep on going though, because this country needs a heavy dose of reality based on logic, lol 😂, peace 💚
Hey! I am glad you're here! I try to make my content accessible to as many people as I can. I'll bet you could run circles around me when it comes to many philosophical concepts. But I don't think people need higher education in philosophy to see the problems with arguments for any god, not because it isn't useful, but because the arguments for god are just that bad. Looking forward to seeing your comments!
@@darkofalltrades I appreciate your comment, but I do feel the need to disagree with part of it. I think most people who have given any thought to the fundamental questions that arise from our existence will understand most of the basic concepts of philosophy are about. They may not be able to teach others what these concepts are, but they can see where the concepts have been a part of their education and working lives. If I could accomplish one thing in my life, it would be to show people that the study of philosophy isn't something for only the big brains and intellectuals, but an area of interest to us all. The ideas which philosophy considers are the foundation for how we view our world, and how can we examine our world and arrive at a better understanding of what we see when we open our eyes. I will usually say to people who ask me what good does the study of philosophy provide by telling them that everyone has a philosophy of life. It's what we all use to justify the choices we make. When we take the time to examine our reasons for why we have made a choice of one course of action among the many possibilities, we are studying philosophy. If we evaluate our reasons for doing something, we can learn how to make better choices in the future, or at least be more secure that we are making a good choice. Whether we are making a good or poor choice is a different question, but it's still a question for philosophy. I know that I have a bias here, and just like I can't give an objective opinion on how other people view the way I look and the actions I take, I am aware that my opinions on philosophy just that, my opinions. But hey, if I put the idea out there for all to see and maybe think about and discuss, then I think I have made a positive contribution to society writ large. It's also a reason to talk to you and others about a subject I've been interested in for 5 decades. I thank you for this opportunity and hope to continue our conversation. This online world is relatively new to me, and I'm still learning how it works, even now at the age of 65. Gaining new skills and knowledge every day is a goal for me now after the loss of my partner and daughter. To keep a semblance of my sanity and a sense of the value of life, I've used the power of music, the support of the best people around me, the lessons life has taught, the love of words and my willingness to talk to anyone about anything when they are interested. My apologies for writing at such length in response to your comment, but these days I find that the words flow easily, and the time goes slowly. I've had many people tell me that my skill at being able to listen to their stories, both good and bad, and the words I have to say, have made a positive difference in their lives. If I do nothing other than making the lives of those around me better, it will mean that I've left this place better than it was before I was here. Thanks for providing me a space to share, take care, peace 💚
Your comments are welcome, so please don't worry about them being too long. I read all of them anyway ^_^ I am fortunate that my comments section is not as much of a dumpster fire that a lot of RUclips comments sections are. The people who comment and respond here tend to be good thinkers, even if we sometimes disagree.
@@darkofalltrades Thank you, and I feel that I must point out that the comment sections under most of the videos put out by the atheist community keep their comments open, unlike the way the creationists function generally. The give and take of the people who are interested in these questions is how we will all come to a better understanding of our world. When you cut off this avenue of discussion, I think it's an indication of the weakness of your position. It's also an example of the usual model of how religious organizations work. The authority figure at the top makes their proclamations of belief, and then everyone else must accept it and take it as gospel. (Couldn't resist using that word here, mostly because of how applicable it is in the xtian world, lol 🙃.) Take care, peace 💚
The intentional confusing language is pretty annoying. It is used a lot when one doesn't have time to sit and unpack the wording, like in a live debate setting. I did my best to break it down here, but it is difficult to unscramble everything in a short video format.
@@darkofalltrades You did well. Among other things, while I'd heard "existence is not a predicate" said before by a friend, I didn't quite get what he meant by it. Your explanation of it made sense to me. (To be fair to my friend, he tried to explain it at the end of a games night on the drive home, while I was doing the driving. He was tired and my attention was split between traffic and him.)
Thank you! I appreciate the comment ^_^ That is one of the goals of my channel, that is, to make these potentially complex topics more accessible for everyone. Thank you for confirming that I am on the right track! The feedback is more helpful than one might think.
superstition - noun 1a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition 2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary Merriam-Webster
A lot of different people cover this topic a lot of ways. I simply define gods as “fictional” as a personal corollary to what I understand people to mean when they talk about God, a god, or gods. As long as I do so, it logically prevents every god from being greater than fiction. Yes, it’s fallacious to conclude this,, but it’s FAR less fallacious than to define God any other way. Literally every god we can objectively categorize as either fictional or actual… fictional is the only category which has contents. I infer this with more certainty that I infer that it’s a bad idea to run across a busy highway… there are circumstances in which it objectively just so happened to be a good idea to run across a busy highway… escaping being killed by deadly predators, for example. As always, it’s up to the theists to demonstrate why I should define any god otherwise. EDIT: For the purposes of discussion, I’m perfectly willing to accept someone’s definition of “God” as the universe. Only thing is… for the purpose of that discussion… I’m not an atheist… and they’ve got nothing to discuss with me. They need to get all the other theists on the same page and THEN I’ll consider being a theist for more than just the sake of conversation.
For Anselm, premise 1 is false. Premise 2 expressly refutes premise 1 because if god existed and you were thinking of that ACTUAL god, then you'd be conceiving of that god. Premise 2 and Premise explicitly destroy the rest of the argument. This was not Anselm's shining moment.
As far as you know, does anyone address the idea that if a maximally great being existing in the real world is better than the concept of such a being, would more than one such being existing in the real world be greater than the concept of more than one, as well as greater than the existence in the real world of just one? Also, it does seem that god thinks more than one worshipper is better than just one, so perhaps my proposal RE more than one maximally powerful being logically follows.(?) I don't know, I'm new here.
If that "maximally great God" is an objective claim, who is it demonstrating that to be true? If it is God telling us those qualities, we only have a circular and subjective claim. Oh, and attempting to define God into existence, is profoundly unimpressive to me. While we're at it, can we define into existence, a maximally hidden God? That being a God that is so hidden, it is impossible to know that it exists.
If I grant all of their premises... what's to say said "Maximally Great" being _isn't_ in some galaxy beyond the observable universe, and thus _can't_ interact with us? It still exists in our universe, but without it ever being able to interact with us... it might as well just not exist, lol. For them, to then say "that maximally great being is our god"... is just... question begging.
People need stories with supernatural events and miracles to belief in a God with their prescriptive commands and laws even when they are nonsensical. Not mumbo-jumbo arguments from a finite human mind.
BS. Just because you like the sound of your one hand slapping your face and one with fingers crossed while saying ,' it's just gotta be true', doesn't make it so.
So these ontological arguments all seem to boil down to "wishful thinking therefore god" its a fun little thought puzzle but I cannot for the life of me figure out why any Christian or Muslim thinks this is compelling. All theistic arguments ive encountered have at least 1 fallacy in them but there are ones that hide their problems much better than this like the cosmological arguments.
All of these attempts to define things into existence in the physical world are the equivalent of trying to build a skyscraper by starting with the third floor. And "maximally great" is a nonsense notion. Greatness is in relationship to its context. For example, if I had a million dollars in my personal fortune, that would be good. But if I had a hundred trillion dollars, I'd be the cause of runaway inflation. Also, existence isn't a matter of degree. Something exists or doesn't.
I think the "existence is not a predicate" criticism is the main argument here. Or, if you want to explain it even more simple: The Title Error. (Which is really just another version of "arguments are not evidence") As soon as you define the attributes of something, you've made your object into a title - a label that may or may not fit onto something. "A Super Dad is a the father of an offspring, that also has red hair." Great, now go check if any Super Dads exist, and if so, how many. "A Super Dad exists in all possible worlds" Great - can you conceive of a world in which no Super Dads exist? Great, now the number of Super Dads are 0, as no Super Dad necessarily exist in all possible worlds. You title doesn't apply to anyone or anything. It's still a valid definition, just not one that applies to anything.
Begging the question is seriously over-diagnosed as a fallacy. It is the nature of all valid deductive arguments that their conclusion is entailed by their premises, so it is foolish to label an argument as fallacious just for that. The label "begging the question" should be reserved for the vanishingly rare case when an argument literally uses its conclusion as one of its premises, because otherwise "begging the question" loses all meaning and basically just translates to "I don't like one of your premises." If we have a problem with one of the premises, it is more productive to criticize that premise rather than label the argument as "begging the question."
I disagree. I've heard it put like this: begging the question is when the plausibility of a premise is "parasitic on" the plausibility of the conclusion. Which means, _the only reason why_ someone would consider the premise plausible, is that they already believe in the conclusion. Example: (1) A person needs a soul in order to be alive. (2) Living people exist. (3) Therefore souls exist. The only reason someone would believe premise (1) is if they already believe in souls. Therefore, this argument is question-begging.
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н : That's a very subjective definition of "begging the question." How are we supposed to determine what people might consider plausible and for what reasons? If someone happened to believe "a person needs a soul in order to be alive" and they did not believe that souls exist, then that argument would be a useful tool for convincing them that souls exist, not a fallacy.
@@Ansatz66 I guess it's not an a priori thing, but a question of what people would believe _in practice,_ given what we know about people. Not subjective, but you could call it "historically contingent".
@@Ansatz66 This sounds like you didn't actually check what the actual definition of Begging the Question is. Because that's pretty damn close and your objection suggests more that you're encountering this fallacy excessively often or are misidentifying it yourself. It's not Begging the Question if the premises do not presuppose or outright state the conclusion; that you can deduce the conclusion from them is not the same thing. The premises themself must be contingent on the conclusion, not just lead to it, that is the argument could be reduced to "A exists because A exists".
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н, It is possible that a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists. If it is possible that a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists, then a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists in some possible world. If a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds. If a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world. If a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists in the actual world, then it exists. The conclusion just restates the first premises... that's how it is Begging the Question. It presumes its possible w/o any justification that a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists then just states "since it is possible for it to exist, it must exist". Just because something is _possible_ doesn't mean it exists in reality. Scientists, unlike Philosophy and their inbred cousin, Theology goes about proving their premises to be true... in reality. Premise 1. Light is a wave, which means it needs a medium to travel through. Premise 2. Space is nearly devoid of any medium for waves to propagate in, yet we see distant objects via light they emit. Conclusion Since light travels through space, there is a medium allowing light waves to propagate in space.
You made an excellent summary of Plantinga's modal ontological argument and its problems. In case it's of interest, I made a video of my own criticisms here: ruclips.net/video/DCv6MhJJryk/видео.html
Ontological arguments *at best* only get to a *a generic god* , which rather misses the point of proving the god the arguer *wants* to exist. Of course the "maximally powerful" god that *I* can imagine would: 1) Not care if it is worshipped. 2) Not care if we know if it exists. 3) Be able to create the universe exactly that it wants without limitations, so free will without evil. 4) Would not need or want to tinker with the universe after it created it, so no miracles, no Christ, just a universe that works no differently than a natural universe.
I appreciate the attempt to educate people on academic philosophy, but you can't seriously think you've fully refuted Anselm or Plantinga by summing up what one might hear in a Philosophy 101 class, like you imply at the end, or by affirming people in your comment section who go as far as to think Plantinga (An incredibly intelligent philosopher with a lot of respect within epistemology) makes arguments that can be proven "useless" or even "a polished turd" in a 15 minute RUclips video. Like seriously, this is an introductory summary, you're only telling people that there are genuine objections, you're not "demolishing Plantinga" or anything like that.
I appreciate your feedback. My video aims to provide an introductory summary of the Teleological Argument and its critiques. I understand that the arguments from philosophers like Anselm and Plantinga are complex and require more nuanced discussion. My goal was not to provide a comprehensive refutation but to highlight some key objections and encourage further exploration. I did not intend to suggest that I have definitively refuted or demolished Plantinga’s arguments (though, in fairness, I can see how my conclusion could potentially come off like I mean that, so point taken). The video is meant to introduce some of the major critiques and encourage viewers to engage more deeply with the material, and dive as deep as possible with the short form a 15-minute RUclips video allows. I agree that these arguments deserve thorough and respectful consideration. I intended to encourage discussion in the comments, as is common in my videos, and I welcome any further discussion or specific points you think should be addressed in a more detailed analysis. I’m always open to expanding the conversation and learning from different perspectives.
Ah ! Western philosophy's dream of talking God into existence ! If Plantinga has a donkey, has he talked its hind legs off yet ? I am with Laplace and have no need for any God hypothesis.
I wish my bank would accept my ontological invisible money so that I can be rid of my crippling debt.
There is a possible world where you are not in debt. That is a criterion for the greatest possible world. If it exists in one possible universe, then it must exist in all possible universe, or else it isn't the greatest form. Therefore, you aren't in debt in the actual universe.
There.
Defines away your debt.
Thank me later.
*Really, it is that bad.*
Definition of a Maximally Great Being: one that doesn't need a billion dollar apologetics industry to prove its morals and existence.
There are people who assert that the existence of apologetics is excellent evidence AGAINST the existence of a god.
@MilesDoyleSalt Did you know Jesus failed to return on a cloud with angels in the days of the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 as promised in Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21?
@@darkofalltradesI think it can be if you want to posit your god has some kind of absolute perfect message and that you assert that god has delivered that message to everyone.
The first time I heard this argument, I thought it was a joke…
Anyway, my favorite premise is:
“If it exists in some possible worlds, then it must exist in all possible worlds.”
Okay… but I can imagine a possible world where he doesn’t exist. This means he is not in ALL possible worlds. And according to the premise, if he’s not in one, he is nowhere.
Ah, see, the problem is that God is defined so that he definitely does exist in all possible worlds.
Sorry!
Flipping the argument around is such a good response.
Given the lack of supporting evidence, a maximally great, yet utterly invisible, unicorn is no less plausible. God believers have been trying to overcome problem of there being no supporting evidence for a very long time.
@MilesDoyleSaltyou took a long time to say little of merit.
My big problem with ontological arguments is that they are all filtered through our own preconceptions and prejudices.
Ultimately they are egotistical arguments.
Wishful thinking and sophistry.
@MilesDoyleSalt Zombie swarm of Jerusalem never happened, dude. Bible contains a BUNCH of BS.
Those historians? They just say "Christians believe in a guy called Jesus." So freaking what?
There are no writings from Jesus. No artifacts from his life. Nothing even written down by ANYONE who met the guy.
Do I think there was probably 1 guy whose exploits got turned into the Gospels? Yes. Is a death cult preacher with a small following the Jesus you actually believe in?
Or will you accept there isn't, can't be, historical evidence for the divine Jesus rather than the human Jesus?
@MilesDoyleSalt thou shalt spit your sh#t among peole
@MilesDoyleSalt Bro, I ain't readin' all that.
I think a major criticism of Plantinga's argument is the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument (MOA).
The reverse MOA introduces another premise in place of Premise 1: "It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.", and shares the definition of maximally great being. This ends with the conclusion "Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist."
The reverse MOA leads one to consider symmetry breakers between this new premise and the existing Premise 1 - removing the rhetorical value of the original argument.
I LOVE THIS!!
I have not thought about inverting this argument, though I do it for the property of omnibenevolence.
I think the fact that the reverse modal ontological argument, that it is possible a maximally great being does not exist, is equally valid rather undermines the whole thing and puts us right back to needing some form of empirical evidence to back up either claim.
Adding a pre-emptive like 👍 and comment. 🙋🏻♂️
Thank you!
Well, those were words.
P1. Horses have an even number of legs.
P2. Horses have 2 hind legs in back and forelegs in front. That's 6 legs.
P3. That's odd number of legs for a horse to have.
P4. The only number that's both even and odd is infinite.
C. Horses have an infinite number of legs.
Let me guess, you took math lessons from Terrence Howard
P2 is silly. Horses have 8 legs. Two in the front, two in the back and 4 attached to the main body.
Infinity is not a number.
That is a remarkable level of equivocation.
@@frogandspanner Not a number with lots of numbers along the way trying to reach a number that just keeps distancing itself.
I recognized that Anselm's argument was ridiculous way back when I still believed. I still can't believe anyone takes it seriously. Defining God into existence. Sure.
It's possible to define a credible god into existence. You're just going to have to discard criteria that are demanded by various believers who would deny that your definition is a god. That their definition is either so absurd or self-contradictory (or both) that it's ultimately impossible, either eludes them or doesn't concern them.
A "maximally great" subject can be incoherent, depending on the individual surveying it; such as a "maximally great" pizza won't be "maximally great" depending on if someone likes anchovies on their pizza or not.
Making the adjective subjective. That is the main issue with that premise.
Another issue is that there might not be a maximally great X in the first place. There isn't a maximally great integer for instance.
I can conceive of a maximally great money tree, and if you'll lend me a million quid, I'll mount an expedition to find it.
@MilesDoyleSalt Other holy books are available.
“A maximally great god-maker must exist and have created all gods from Yhwh to Coyote. This great and mighty Stanandjack therefore must exist in our world.”
I use the idea that, by theist's logic, it is possible that the creator god was created by another god that DIDN'T make the universe.
Or I use Eric, the God-Eating Penguin, who eats any and every god. The existence of Eric, the God-Eating Penguin proves that no gods exist because, by definition, if they did, Eric, the God-Eating Penguin would eat them.
@@darkofalltrades Eric The God-Eating penguin is a terrible response because he can easily be shown to be a logically incoherent concept, because the idea that God cannot be eaten is contained in the idea of God, which is in turn contained in the idea of Eric the God-Eating Penguin.
I don't think Alvin Plantinga would disagree that the ultimate God might be different from the one who created our world as far as the ontological argument is concerned.
@@Glass-io9bq Regarding Eric the God-Eating Penguin, my intention was to illustrate a reductio ad absurdum to highlight potential issues with the application of the ontological argument. The concept was meant to provoke thought about the implications of extending the argument’s logic to extreme or absurd conclusions.
I understand the critique about the logical coherence of Eric the God-Eating Penguin. If the concept is seen as self-contradictory due to the inherent characteristics of the idea of God, then the analogy may have its limitations. The goal was to test the boundaries of the argument’s logic rather than to present a feasible being.
Regarding Plantinga, you are correct that his argument focuses on the possibility of a maximally great being and does not necessarily address the specifics of creation or the nature of gods in other contexts.
Maximally great pizza? Damn, there goes my diet!
You need a maximally great diet.
A maximally great pizza would still fill you up, be delicious, and make sure you didn't gain any weight from eating it.
It exists in some possible world. Therefore, it must exist in the actual world, or else it couldn't be a maximally great pizza.
@MilesDoyleSalt I'm afraid your preaching is indeed worthless.
You should also reevaluate what you consider to be good evidence because it isn't.
@MilesDoyleSalt Sir this is a Wendy's.
Plantinga's version doesnt address any problems with the ontological argument, but it certainly does obfuscate them.
Which realistically is the only qualification possible for an apologist. A+ full marks for Plantinga, he has a completely useless argument, but it SOUNDS smart!
Perverse incentives at work.
Apologists aren't rewarded for sound arguments. They're rewarded for presentations that are hard to debunk. The perfect apologetic isn't "this is clearly true" but "I can't show it's wrong".
That pretty much sums up these ontological appeals to the existence of God. Word salad that sounds smart but ultimately proves jack shit
You and Viced Rhino really need to do a collab.
I would love to work with him. I am definitely cleaner (in subject and jokes) than he is, but his style is appealing.
@@darkofalltradeshe does a collab with another skeptic (I forget the name of the channel).
@@JAMESLEVEE Suris the Skeptic.
@@JAMESLEVEE VR has done collabs and similar with a number of other channels, like Paulogia. I believe that's how I found VR back in the day.
Anyway, agreed, a collab between them would be fun.
I would love to, but his channel is quite a bit bigger than mine. I need to grow to really get on his radar.
Though this is a comment that I recommend go on his comment section, too.
If enough people bring me up to him, the more likely he will notice (me sempai).
0:44 "...based on logic and definition..." I prefer to use "axiom" to include "definition" there.
Axioms usually reduce the domain of discourse, so even if the conclusions is true it is not universally true, and the use of such arguments to prove the existence of a god cannot prove a universal god. If the argument claims to have universal applicability then it fails.
Most _a priori_ arguments have hidden axioms, so the first job of a sceptic is to identify them.
I always despised this argument, it's just defining something into existence without even leading to a particular being. It always struck me as mental masturbation.
I wonder about Plantinga's argument, "maximal excellence" just captures a collection of traits that theists typically associate with their god. Why couldn't we run the same argument with "maximal islandness"?
Yep! That is exactly the point of the maximally great island response ^_^
@@darkofalltrades It just seems to me like it applies equally well to Plantinga's argument, or am I missing something?
Yep! It sure does!
@@darkofalltrades No it doesn't. What are you even talking about? The concept of an island that exists in all possible worlds makes no sense, insofar as an island is inherently contingent, and we can easily imagine a world wherein there are no islands. Maybe a sufficiently smart skeptic philosopher might be able to defend such a response, but it's far easier to defend that God, if he exists, must be necessary.
@@Glass-io9bq The purpose of the “maximal island” analogy isn’t necessarily to find a perfect one-to-one comparison with Plantinga’s argument, but rather to highlight a potential issue with applying the same logical structure to different concepts. While it’s true that islands are contingent and might not fit neatly into the idea of “maximal greatness,” the analogy serves to question whether the ontological argument’s logic is robust enough to apply universally to any concept of maximal greatness, or if it’s susceptible to similar critiques.
The critique seems to focus on the nature of islands versus necessary beings, but my point was to examine whether the form of the argument allows for problematic applications. In other words, if the argument can be extended to concepts that intuitively seem implausible, like a “maximally great island,” it might suggest limitations or potential issues in the argument’s structure or assumptions.
In essence, the analogy is a tool for exploring the argument’s boundaries and coherence, not a direct empirical comparison. The focus should be on whether the argument's logical framework holds up across different contexts and concepts.
I appreciate the discussion and your thoughtful response!
Just define gods into existence! Don't need evidence.
Wish reeeeeeeeeeeeeally hard!
Conceiving anything "maximally great" is possible if and only if the conceiver is omniscient.
By the way, what does "maximally great" really mean? Does it mean "greater than anything and everything" or "as great as possible within certain conditions"? Did some apologist (possibly WLC) use the term in the latter sense? I believe my statement stands in either case.
I am inclined to agree.
If one person can't conceive of a god any greater than a certain form, that says nothing about whether another person can conceive of another being even greater than that!
This also means that even if we granted the argument 100%, it can not be any currently proposed gods like the god of the bible or the god of Islam. Why? Because I can conceive of a god greater than those.
Anselm's argument has a few implicit assertions, such as existing in reality is greater than only existing in the mind, as well as a very generic notion of "greatness" which honestly serves to obfuscate the subjectivity of the term and thus enable him to use it as if it were in fact objective which is what his argument relies on.
It's pretty much an argument from imagination as it wholly relies on one's perceived notions of greatness in order to hold any water. Of course that itself is subjective and thus doesn't lend any credibility to any objective "maximally great being" existing which is the conclusion of his argument. One could easily conceive of a god greater than Plantinga did, one may even argue that the god of some other religion may actually be greater than the Hebrew god all due to the subjectivity of greatness and what it means according to each individual.
It fails therefore to overcome the bar of opinion as it is in fact an argument from opinion or at least personal imagination yet seeks to claim objective ground based solely on these subjective imaginations and opinions. We can see how the argument breaks apart when we consider any other "maximally great" things like pizzas, cars, islands and such where the subjectivity in the notion of what is "great" for any individual rises to the fore. Yet another example of how theists have trouble with the fact that not everyone's minds work the same as their or hold the same beliefs as theirs.
7:04 Omnipotence and omniscience together form a logical contradiction where such a being cannot change their minds as that would override their omniscience but not being able to change their minds would mean that they are not omnipotent, thus the 2 terms existing together in a single being would result in that being's existence being logically contradictory.
Morality is subjective by all appearances so any definition of anything that relies on morality of any sort is going to be subjective simply based on this notion. Asserting that morality is objective would require a demonstration of such that, frankly, isn't possible. His first definition is already not looking too hot.
8:04 Here it is important to note that the argument doesn't speak for multiversal singularity, a notion where a particular being exists as a single individual entity throughout various multiverses rather than having different versions of itself in each multiverse. This is the case even though Plantinga's god would require multiversal singularity. After all, is there any conflict with the existence of more than one "maximally great" being? According to Plantinga's definitions of what makes a "maximally great being" no.
11:45 The way Plantinga's argument uses the term "possible" seems to be of the broadest scope where any and all things (including contradictory things) may be possible. After all it asserts the possibility of the existence of multiple worlds as well as the concept of maximal greatness, things not even remotely in evidence. Such cannot be transitioned easily to plausibility through reasoning alone, let alone CERTAINTY which is what the conclusion posits.
I love the attention to detail you have here!
Though I love the idea of argumentum ab imaginatione. I think I'll use that wording. Thanks for that!
It begins with the problems I have with the concept of "maximally great being" - I'm not convinced there is one where I can't think of a greater one, at least as long as "greater" is undefined. The multi-omni one has different problems - currently, I think it is incoherent, as all the omni traits are self-contradictory. Also, I question the whole concept of a _necessary_ being, and I'd want to see more about how they define a _possible_ world.
Modal logic is pretty confusing at first, second, and third look. That is one reason why I think Plantinga used the confusing nature of the argument to try to get people to overlook the problems (even if unintentionally).
Looks like “modal logic” is just about as useful as astrology and I have just as much the same interest into looking into it.
Same argument works for "maximally evil being" who is the most powerful being in the universe...oh, wait....Yahweh?
Thank you. Saving this one.
If it helps even a little bit, it was worth the work! ^_^
What's really ironic is that if you actually accept the ontological Argument as true, then you've essentially disproven all of the Abrahamic faiths.
The very existence of Christianity and Islam proves conclusively that the god of the Bible isn't the greatest conceivable being, because people have conceived of a being much greater than the God that actually appears in the pages of that book.
Further, both Christianity and Islam are subsequently proven false by this argument by the fact that many atheists (myself included) can conceive of a being greater than the God those faiths claim exists.
Namely, a god that was capable of creating a world without evil and suffering, but with free will, and actually chose to do so.
Indeed, a god that didn't create Hell would literally be infinitely greater than the God of those faiths.
This is an excellent response. I love that it grants every single thing and then shows why they are still wrong! Well done!
Let's grant that we have defined a maximally great being into existence.
Still does not get us to God/Yaweh/Jesus/Allah/Shiva/Jupiter/etc....
We still have facts about reality, and assumptions about maximally great. Only functionally useless ideas of divine beings can fit both.
I can conceive of a better god than all of those. Therefore, even if they do exist, the god I conceived also exists.
Clearly, the greatest of all beings is Okami Amaterasu.
Origin of all that is good
Mother to us all
Jumpkicks the source of all evil to get her powers back
Cuddly-Wuddly
Goodest Girl
Feeder of small cute animals
Demon slayer extraordinaire
The list just keeps going
Philosophers like Anselm or Plantinga would never suggest that they've proven Christianity true (Though no pagan would recognize Jupiter as the greatest conceivable being. The average pagan philosopher in antiquity would recognize Plantinga's God as Plato's "Form of the good" or Aristotle's unmoved mover, or most likely the stoic concept of God).
It really seems like those all reduce to If A, then A.
There is no point in allowing Anselm's Onto to continue past 1 if the person using it can not demonstrate absolute knowledge of everything in the universe.
Fails every time. I'm amazed this Anselm guy is considered a doer of deepity thinks, he seems a bit wishful to me.
By his logic we can "prove" we're all sharks. Not just sharks, maximally great sharks! Give me a break.
Hume's criticism of Anselm is basically a less specified version of Kant's criticism, as far as I can tell (Though I'm only really familiar with Kant's formulation). There are arguments for or against the island-thing, but the main reason people today reject the argument is because they intuitively agree with Kant. That said, we should be aware that the main difference is that Anselm was working within a very different ontological worldview, wherein it definitely makes sense to think that existence or "being" can be an intrinsic property of a concept. So it's less that Kant simply pointed out an obvious truth that Anselm would've/should've recognized, and more that he defends an overall different viewpoint where Anselm's argument doesn't makes sense. In other words, you do ultimately have to defend the view that existence can't be an analytic predicate (Nobody's denying that it's a predicate, the question is whether that predicate is synthetic or analytic).
The way you criticize the definition is honestly very uncompelling, and accidentally provides a response to the "island" or "unicorn" example. The thing about "the greatest conceivable being" is that such a being would be maximally great in all ways, whereas "The greatest conceivable X" is more likely to suffer from this "subjectivity" (Although Anselm obviously wasn't a moral subjectivist) objection.
Alvin Plantinga, for the record, never claimed that his argument should convince a skeptic that God exists, at least not on its own. He's mainly responding to philosophers who argue that theism is irrational, and for my money its biggest contribution is proving that the existence of God is a question about the fundamental nature of reality, and thus distinct from (For example) Russell's celestial teapot. This really weakens the "Begging the question" accusation (Note that it's harder to define "Begging the question" than you might think. Certainly having a single premise isn't begging the question, because it's done all the time in formal logic).
The accusations of equivocation and special pleading are just painful. Some people certainly equivocate the technical meaning of "possible" and the epistemic colloquial sense, but neither Plantinga nor any other serious philosopher has tried to do that. Similarly, there are real (And very compelling) arguments for why a "Maximally great pizza" is genuinely different from God, none of which amount to special pleading. You should be very, very careful about accusing one of the smartest living philosophers of committing basic logical fallacies.
I appreciate the depth of your response and the effort you’ve put into keeping me honest. I must say you clearly have a strong grasp of the subject.
I stand by my original points, though I recognize that there are differing perspectives, and a more detailed discussion could be valuable in the future. While I may have differing views on some aspects, I agree that some subjectivity might be involved in our interpretations.
As far as I'm concerned, Alvin's argument is just polishing a turd.
He doesn't actually fix the original argument, just adds new problems. Just like Low Bar Bill does with the Kalam.
By changing the wording, he tries to fix things and ends up with similar, but slightly different problems
Never heard one for or against that was convincing. Have fun.
Came here after hearing your colab with Scarlett, and you did a good job of showing where these arguments fail. As someone who earned a degree in philosophy 40 + years ago, I understand the need to keep the mind sharp. But it might be a little too easy to show where these kinda silly arguments for a deity fail in their premises. Please keep on going though, because this country needs a heavy dose of reality based on logic, lol 😂, peace 💚
Hey! I am glad you're here!
I try to make my content accessible to as many people as I can. I'll bet you could run circles around me when it comes to many philosophical concepts. But I don't think people need higher education in philosophy to see the problems with arguments for any god, not because it isn't useful, but because the arguments for god are just that bad.
Looking forward to seeing your comments!
@@darkofalltrades I appreciate your comment, but I do feel the need to disagree with part of it. I think most people who have given any thought to the fundamental questions that arise from our existence will understand most of the basic concepts of philosophy are about. They may not be able to teach others what these concepts are, but they can see where the concepts have been a part of their education and working lives.
If I could accomplish one thing in my life, it would be to show people that the study of philosophy isn't something for only the big brains and intellectuals, but an area of interest to us all. The ideas which philosophy considers are the foundation for how we view our world, and how can we examine our world and arrive at a better understanding of what we see when we open our eyes.
I will usually say to people who ask me what good does the study of philosophy provide by telling them that everyone has a philosophy of life. It's what we all use to justify the choices we make. When we take the time to examine our reasons for why we have made a choice of one course of action among the many possibilities, we are studying philosophy. If we evaluate our reasons for doing something, we can learn how to make better choices in the future, or at least be more secure that we are making a good choice. Whether we are making a good or poor choice is a different question, but it's still a question for philosophy.
I know that I have a bias here, and just like I can't give an objective opinion on how other people view the way I look and the actions I take, I am aware that my opinions on philosophy just that, my opinions. But hey, if I put the idea out there for all to see and maybe think about and discuss, then I think I have made a positive contribution to society writ large. It's also a reason to talk to you and others about a subject I've been interested in for 5 decades. I thank you for this opportunity and hope to continue our conversation. This online world is relatively new to me, and I'm still learning how it works, even now at the age of 65. Gaining new skills and knowledge every day is a goal for me now after the loss of my partner and daughter. To keep a semblance of my sanity and a sense of the value of life, I've used the power of music, the support of the best people around me, the lessons life has taught, the love of words and my willingness to talk to anyone about anything when they are interested.
My apologies for writing at such length in response to your comment, but these days I find that the words flow easily, and the time goes slowly. I've had many people tell me that my skill at being able to listen to their stories, both good and bad, and the words I have to say, have made a positive difference in their lives. If I do nothing other than making the lives of those around me better, it will mean that I've left this place better than it was before I was here.
Thanks for providing me a space to share, take care, peace 💚
Your comments are welcome, so please don't worry about them being too long. I read all of them anyway ^_^
I am fortunate that my comments section is not as much of a dumpster fire that a lot of RUclips comments sections are. The people who comment and respond here tend to be good thinkers, even if we sometimes disagree.
@@darkofalltrades Thank you, and I feel that I must point out that the comment sections under most of the videos put out by the atheist community keep their comments open, unlike the way the creationists function generally. The give and take of the people who are interested in these questions is how we will all come to a better understanding of our world. When you cut off this avenue of discussion, I think it's an indication of the weakness of your position. It's also an example of the usual model of how religious organizations work. The authority figure at the top makes their proclamations of belief, and then everyone else must accept it and take it as gospel. (Couldn't resist using that word here, mostly because of how applicable it is in the xtian world, lol 🙃.)
Take care, peace 💚
I can conceive of a greater god, take the identity of Anselms god and have him magically produced a treat for people every time they do something good
Wishful thinking and sophistry. This shit is a big reason why many people dislike philosophy.
The intentional confusing language is pretty annoying. It is used a lot when one doesn't have time to sit and unpack the wording, like in a live debate setting. I did my best to break it down here, but it is difficult to unscramble everything in a short video format.
@@darkofalltrades You did well.
Among other things, while I'd heard "existence is not a predicate" said before by a friend, I didn't quite get what he meant by it. Your explanation of it made sense to me.
(To be fair to my friend, he tried to explain it at the end of a games night on the drive home, while I was doing the driving. He was tired and my attention was split between traffic and him.)
Thank you! I appreciate the comment ^_^
That is one of the goals of my channel, that is, to make these potentially complex topics more accessible for everyone. Thank you for confirming that I am on the right track! The feedback is more helpful than one might think.
superstition - noun
1a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Merriam-Webster
A lot of different people cover this topic a lot of ways.
I simply define gods as “fictional” as a personal corollary to what I understand people to mean when they talk about God, a god, or gods. As long as I do so, it logically prevents every god from being greater than fiction. Yes, it’s fallacious to conclude this,, but it’s FAR less fallacious than to define God any other way. Literally every god we can objectively categorize as either fictional or actual… fictional is the only category which has contents. I infer this with more certainty that I infer that it’s a bad idea to run across a busy highway… there are circumstances in which it objectively just so happened to be a good idea to run across a busy highway… escaping being killed by deadly predators, for example.
As always, it’s up to the theists to demonstrate why I should define any god otherwise.
EDIT: For the purposes of discussion, I’m perfectly willing to accept someone’s definition of “God” as the universe. Only thing is… for the purpose of that discussion… I’m not an atheist… and they’ve got nothing to discuss with me. They need to get all the other theists on the same page and THEN I’ll consider being a theist for more than just the sake of conversation.
Isn't Heidegger's "Being and Time" the modern understanding of ontology?
Ontological arguments are
spongebob arguments:
arguments from IMAGINATION
little known fact: Anselm’s original manuscript was written in crayon
For Anselm, premise 1 is false. Premise 2 expressly refutes premise 1 because if god existed and you were thinking of that ACTUAL god, then you'd be conceiving of that god. Premise 2 and Premise explicitly destroy the rest of the argument. This was not Anselm's shining moment.
As far as you know, does anyone address the idea that if a maximally great being existing in the real world is better than the concept of such a being, would more than one such being existing in the real world be greater than the concept of more than one, as well as greater than the existence in the real world of just one? Also, it does seem that god thinks more than one worshipper is better than just one, so perhaps my proposal RE more than one maximally powerful being logically follows.(?) I don't know, I'm new here.
If that "maximally great God" is an objective claim, who is it demonstrating that to be true?
If it is God telling us those qualities, we only have a circular and subjective claim.
Oh, and attempting to define God into existence, is profoundly unimpressive to me.
While we're at it, can we define into existence, a maximally hidden God?
That being a God that is so hidden, it is impossible to know that it exists.
If I grant all of their premises... what's to say said "Maximally Great" being _isn't_ in some galaxy beyond the observable universe, and thus _can't_ interact with us? It still exists in our universe, but without it ever being able to interact with us... it might as well just not exist, lol.
For them, to then say "that maximally great being is our god"... is just... question begging.
Ontological Arguments are fundamentally assertions bases on beliefs with out any facts that hold any lajitanace .
People need stories with supernatural events and miracles to belief in a God with their prescriptive commands and laws even when they are nonsensical. Not mumbo-jumbo arguments from a finite human mind.
These arguments used to stump me. Thank you for this
I wasn't sure when I first heard them either! I am glad my video helped you! That is why I do them; to help people.
BS. Just because you like the sound of your one hand slapping your face and one with fingers crossed while saying ,' it's just gotta be true', doesn't make it so.
So these ontological arguments all seem to boil down to "wishful thinking therefore god" its a fun little thought puzzle but I cannot for the life of me figure out why any Christian or Muslim thinks this is compelling. All theistic arguments ive encountered have at least 1 fallacy in them but there are ones that hide their problems much better than this like the cosmological arguments.
All of these attempts to define things into existence in the physical world are the equivalent of trying to build a skyscraper by starting with the third floor.
And "maximally great" is a nonsense notion. Greatness is in relationship to its context. For example, if I had a million dollars in my personal fortune, that would be good. But if I had a hundred trillion dollars, I'd be the cause of runaway inflation. Also, existence isn't a matter of degree. Something exists or doesn't.
I think the "existence is not a predicate" criticism is the main argument here.
Or, if you want to explain it even more simple: The Title Error. (Which is really just another version of "arguments are not evidence")
As soon as you define the attributes of something, you've made your object into a title - a label that may or may not fit onto something.
"A Super Dad is a the father of an offspring, that also has red hair."
Great, now go check if any Super Dads exist, and if so, how many.
"A Super Dad exists in all possible worlds"
Great - can you conceive of a world in which no Super Dads exist? Great, now the number of Super Dads are 0, as no Super Dad necessarily exist in all possible worlds. You title doesn't apply to anyone or anything. It's still a valid definition, just not one that applies to anything.
Begging the question is seriously over-diagnosed as a fallacy. It is the nature of all valid deductive arguments that their conclusion is entailed by their premises, so it is foolish to label an argument as fallacious just for that. The label "begging the question" should be reserved for the vanishingly rare case when an argument literally uses its conclusion as one of its premises, because otherwise "begging the question" loses all meaning and basically just translates to "I don't like one of your premises." If we have a problem with one of the premises, it is more productive to criticize that premise rather than label the argument as "begging the question."
I disagree. I've heard it put like this: begging the question is when the plausibility of a premise is "parasitic on" the plausibility of the conclusion. Which means, _the only reason why_ someone would consider the premise plausible, is that they already believe in the conclusion.
Example:
(1) A person needs a soul in order to be alive.
(2) Living people exist.
(3) Therefore souls exist.
The only reason someone would believe premise (1) is if they already believe in souls. Therefore, this argument is question-begging.
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н : That's a very subjective definition of "begging the question." How are we supposed to determine what people might consider plausible and for what reasons? If someone happened to believe "a person needs a soul in order to be alive" and they did not believe that souls exist, then that argument would be a useful tool for convincing them that souls exist, not a fallacy.
@@Ansatz66 I guess it's not an a priori thing, but a question of what people would believe _in practice,_ given what we know about people. Not subjective, but you could call it "historically contingent".
@@Ansatz66 This sounds like you didn't actually check what the actual definition of Begging the Question is. Because that's pretty damn close and your objection suggests more that you're encountering this fallacy excessively often or are misidentifying it yourself.
It's not Begging the Question if the premises do not presuppose or outright state the conclusion; that you can deduce the conclusion from them is not the same thing.
The premises themself must be contingent on the conclusion, not just lead to it, that is the argument could be reduced to "A exists because A exists".
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н,
It is possible that a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists.
If it is possible that a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists, then a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists in some possible world.
If a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds.
If a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world.
If a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists in the actual world, then it exists.
The conclusion just restates the first premises... that's how it is Begging the Question. It presumes its possible w/o any justification that a green eyed, purple skinned, tripedal being exists then just states "since it is possible for it to exist, it must exist". Just because something is _possible_ doesn't mean it exists in reality.
Scientists, unlike Philosophy and their inbred cousin, Theology goes about proving their premises to be true... in reality.
Premise 1. Light is a wave, which means it needs a medium to travel through.
Premise 2. Space is nearly devoid of any medium for waves to propagate in, yet we see distant objects via light they emit.
Conclusion Since light travels through space, there is a medium allowing light waves to propagate in space.
You made an excellent summary of Plantinga's modal ontological argument and its problems. In case it's of interest, I made a video of my own criticisms here: ruclips.net/video/DCv6MhJJryk/видео.html
Ontological arguments *at best* only get to a *a generic god* , which rather misses the point of proving the god the arguer *wants* to exist.
Of course the "maximally powerful" god that *I* can imagine would: 1) Not care if it is worshipped. 2) Not care if we know if it exists. 3) Be able to create the universe exactly that it wants without limitations, so free will without evil. 4) Would not need or want to tinker with the universe after it created it, so no miracles, no Christ, just a universe that works no differently than a natural universe.
_All_ arguments for a god or gods are fails, every time, because arguments are not _evidence._
Arguments are a way to interpret evidence
I appreciate the attempt to educate people on academic philosophy, but you can't seriously think you've fully refuted Anselm or Plantinga by summing up what one might hear in a Philosophy 101 class, like you imply at the end, or by affirming people in your comment section who go as far as to think Plantinga (An incredibly intelligent philosopher with a lot of respect within epistemology) makes arguments that can be proven "useless" or even "a polished turd" in a 15 minute RUclips video.
Like seriously, this is an introductory summary, you're only telling people that there are genuine objections, you're not "demolishing Plantinga" or anything like that.
I appreciate your feedback. My video aims to provide an introductory summary of the Teleological Argument and its critiques. I understand that the arguments from philosophers like Anselm and Plantinga are complex and require more nuanced discussion. My goal was not to provide a comprehensive refutation but to highlight some key objections and encourage further exploration. I did not intend to suggest that I have definitively refuted or demolished Plantinga’s arguments (though, in fairness, I can see how my conclusion could potentially come off like I mean that, so point taken).
The video is meant to introduce some of the major critiques and encourage viewers to engage more deeply with the material, and dive as deep as possible with the short form a 15-minute RUclips video allows. I agree that these arguments deserve thorough and respectful consideration.
I intended to encourage discussion in the comments, as is common in my videos, and I welcome any further discussion or specific points you think should be addressed in a more detailed analysis. I’m always open to expanding the conversation and learning from different perspectives.