The Ontological Argument 

@@rizzy1909 Nobody is impressed with your highfalutin language. It’s okay to admit that God exists.

@@vinniebasile9404 You didn’t bother addressing my refutation, hence proving my response was sufficient to dissect your argument.

@@rizzy1909 I don’t understand your argument .

@@rizzy1909 My refutation is that you are guilty of using the ambiguity logical fallacy. You’re just trying to intellectually intimidate others into agreeing with you by using long-winded jargon. What you’re saying makes zero sense.

@@vinniebasile9404 Me utilising advanced vocabulary is simply a natural concomitant of debating, you haven’t responded to my objection to this ontological argument, hence your epistemology has collapsed into absurdity.

Keep on learning because we need some more Christian thinkers on the rise!!!!

​@@bikesrcool_1958you know he could be muslim or hindu etc right?

@@steeg03 who knew Muslim thinkers could think?

That was mean lol sorry

@@bikesrcool_1958 A lot of knowledge from Ancient Greece & Rome was translated by and from Arabic scholars. The Arabic language and math have influenced the West in all kinds of ways.

I’m right there with you, bubba! It’s a glorious depiction of God’s sovereignty over the universe. And we haven’t even discussed the Teleological or Cosmological arguments yet!

Well, think harder: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being *doesn't* exist. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being *doesn't* exist, then a maximally great being *doesn't* exist in some possible world 3. If a maximally great being *doesn't* exist in some possible world, then it *doesn't* exist in every possible world 4. If a maximally great being *doesn't* exist in every possible world, then it exists in no possible world. 5. Therefore a maximally great being *doesn't* exist. (4 necessarily follows from the definition of maximally great being)

@@peterp-a-n4743 You really think I haven't thought of that?

@@MechaWingZero have you? Because my argument is definitely valid and I'd say sound. Any responses against my proof that there is no God?

@@peterp-a-n4743 It was the first thing I thought of upon hearing the modal form of the ontological argument in fact. It is indeed definitely valid, but it isn't sound; because premise 1 could only be true if it was actually impossible for a maximally great being to exist. For it to be impossible for such a being to exist, it would need to be an incoherent concept, such as a married bachelor or a square circle. A maximally great being on the other hand at least intuitively seems to be a perfectly coherent idea - one that is in fact a possibility. It should be noted however that sometimes we use the word "possible" in a way that doesn't precisely mean what it does here, and instead means "we don't have enough information to determine whether it could exist or not." For example, is there life on Mars? We don't know for sure, so some would say it is "possible" - but what they mean more precisely is that we actually do not know not only whether there in fact is life on Mars, but even whether such a thing _could_ happen. We do know for sure that there are no married bachelors on Mars or anywhere else, on the other hand because we know that is an incoherent idea The ontological argument is definitely built on the premise that the idea of a maximally great being is coherent and rational. If it is, then it is not actually possible that such a being does not exist because by definition He must be maximally great in every possible world. Therefor, since premise 1 is incorrect, the counter ontological argument fails.

Evolution explains life not Genesis & Earth is Billions of years old not Thousands!

@@timeames2509 who says God didnt make the earth through the big band and evolution tho?

Lol no it doesn’t haha

@@K0wface There may be a Superior being that created Universe, but it's not all about Earth & Bible!

@@timeames2509 holy crap just take every thing you've ever written and throw it in a hole.

Don’t bother. It really is just defining god into existence by attributing existence as a property to god. Existence isn’t a property lol

@@K0wface Nowhere here is God defined into existence but as a necessary entity, and a necessary entity does not have to exist because it can be metaphysically impossible, so be more careful in analyzing arguments because atheists apparently have a habit of being very sloppy in evaluating arguments. Nowhere here is God defined into existence but as a necessary entity, and a necessary entity does not have to exist because it can be metaphysically impossible, so be more careful in analyzing arguments because atheists apparently have a habit of being very sloppy in evaluating arguments.

This is better stated; ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wGhLw1ULGFk.html

@@kenandzafic3948 So... you just did what you said wasn't being done. By claiming something is necessary, metaphysically or not, you have defined it into existence. Once you say it follows that an entity which is necessary MUST exist, then you've defined it into existence lol. What concept is snagging you? Where are you getting tripped up?

@@K0wface This is not true, the required entity may not exist here are some examples. Mathematical objects are necessary but metaphysically impossible. Moral objects are necessary but metaphysically impossible. Maximally elevated pizza is necessary but metaphysically impossible.

Agreed, Craig has yet to refute ADS.

Except he really isn’t that simple though, man has a 1000 page book which details how he doesn’t like a certain people group to have this end of their skin on their penis, or to use mixed fabrics. Like I get the idea of it… but the God of the Bible is just not absolutely simple, that’s why people study the Bible their whole lives and stuff .

@@azophi the thing you're saying is I believe as a consequence of the regular use term "simple" being associated with the technical term in philosophy. What it means that God is simple is that he isn't composed, he has no power parts, no quantitative parts or anything like that. He is the divine "one". He is complicated but not "complex" like all of creation is. As an example, we have thoughts in our head. God doesn't. He is his thoughts.

An attribute that you simply assign, like the attribute of a GCB that “exists” as a fundamental property because we imagine it. All apologists are laughable.

@@Zodemus I think the ontological argument is pretty laughable tbh yeah. It can be difficult at times to see where the equivocation is happening with Plantinga’s version/ why anselms doesn’t work but like People know enough about the world to know that you can’t just define stuff into existence

Someone pointed out yesterday that the comments were closed, so we just opened them up! - RF Admin

@SheepofChrist818 The comments were shut off because between 2006-the mid 2010s any video related to God or arguments for God made by believers or pro Christian or theist channels would get down voted to oblivion and the comment sections would get really toxic. Atheist and New Atheist fan trolls would attack and bully believers in these comment sections. So they closed the comment section.

The omnipotence paradox can be countered by defining omnipotence as performing all possible actions, which does not refer to logically absurd, or impossible actions. God can not make 1+1 = 4 for example. If He was all knowing, there would no circumstance where He would need to change His mind. If an omnipotent figure can lift anything, it would be impossible for there to be a rock that He could not lift. I think the argument for existence vs non-existence, is that a maximally great being that does exist would logically be maximally greater than a being that does not exist.

@@billdenbrough501 ​ Yes that would solve the omnipotence paradox. Although in the case of omniscience and not being able to change his mind that would suggest pre-determination but that's a different debate. My main issue with the argument for existence vs nonexistence in this case is that the definition of a maximally great being is as subjective as a maximally great pizza. Specifically, the "morally perfect" bit but also that omnipotence is as subjective a concept as moral perfection.

@@colinadams5419 Yeah, I agree, I don't think it's been sufficiently argued that a maximally great being has been defined so that it is objective rather than subjective either.

It can be, but not always. Maximally logical for instance is objective because logic is objective. If you say universal truth does not exist, I can ask "is that absolutely true?". If you say "yes", you've just contradicted your original statement. If you say "no", then it becomes an irrelevant statement.

You get athiests who explain the nature of the universe by the multiverse "theory". Eg we are in this world as the multiverse generates infinite worlds so we just happen to fit into this one. This argument destroys that idea as it then postulates that a God could exist in one and therefore ALL. The athiest is stuck back to " what caused the start of the universe " and can't resort to infinite regression

@@nevermind824 I also find those atheists who believe in a multiverse to be inconsistent. If they believe in a multiverse without evidence, then why not God? They could always say "Well, I can't count the supernatural as a possibility because I dont have any evidence to know if the supernatural even exists." My response would be: Why do you exclude the supernatural as a possibility when you, in reality, don't know if it exists or not? If we have absolutely no evidence for something, what can we conclude from that? NOTHING! It would be a shame to miss the truth just because of some sort of methodological approach to science. (Rather, I think they take these methodological approaches just to exclude God as a cause) Further, I think that there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural, they just almost always posit that "science will eventually find a way to explain it". If they assert something like this, then you can know that they have blind faith in their position and are actively against God. So, if you find an atheist that treats something like the multiverse hypothesis with more credability than God, then you can know that they are against God and not worth trying to convince.

​@@nevermind824 Reach harder and you might touch god's feet

@@steeg03 Atheism requires at least one miracle, of how it all started. Atheism is a choice, not informed conclusion. Atheism and Monotheism are both choices. I hope you choose correctly.

I see, you point out that the video lied about Planting and Anselm, but it convinced you. 1 It's possible for a maximally great being not to exist. 2 In some possible world, a maximally great being does not exist. 3 A maximally great being must exist in all possible worlds. 4 Therefore a maximally great being does not exist.

@@bartbannister394 that's great, but the same still applies to an all powerful being regardless of morality

A nonexistent being is as impossible as a married bachelor .

@@bartbannister394 Isn't it impossible for a maximally great being not to exist? Since it is maximally great is has to exist?

Bartbannister394 unless you can point out why a maximally great being is a logical absurdity in some possible worlds in premise two, the reverse ontological argument does not work

He was

He was was a platonist, but he never talked about "possible worlds", tbh this video is a bit misleading about what Anselm actually argued.

@Gittergudder so good . That was really really easy to understand thankyou.

1. No. A morally perfect Being could have valid reason for allowing evil. We simply aren't in a position to know what they are. 2. We're not limited to these 3 qualities. The argument simply asks us to consider, hypothetically, the idea of a Being with these qualities and ask ourselves if such a Being is a logically coherent idea or not. If it is, then that Being must exist. 3. These qualities are objective in the sense that it is intuitively obvious/undeniable that to be all-powerful is a greater characteristic than being less-than-all-powerful. Being morally perfect is a greater characteristic than being morally flawed.

@@emailjough well said

If a maximaly great being cannot exist.... could a great being of any kind exist ? I don't think so. If something is great... it should follow there must be something maximaly great to use as a reference. Afterall you cannot know a line is not straight if a straight line doesn't exist. It's a word salad for you... because you litteraly do not even understand what is being said.

@@balkananimations6389 I don't know what I'm talking about? What does being great mean? You never bothered to define it. More word salad.

The possibility for a maximally great being to NOT exist, is a logical impossibility. You can’t flip the argument around and expect it to work.

​@@OhhhUtuchMYtralala Arguments never work, only facts work and there are none. Prayer has scientifically been proven not to work, the bible has scientifically been proven to be wrong, Christianity is not a religion of love, history proves that. Judaism is even more primitive. Playing word salad with stupid phrases, like maximally great, doesn't work either.

@ArnabDas-ro5gz You can't possibly know if a maximally great being exists or not in any universe. The fact that you insist on claiming it does, indicates your level of honesty. Amazing the lengths a human being will go to protect their feel good delusions.

exactly

Dr. Craig addresses this premise in Question of the Week #380: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/bizarro-ontological-arguments. - RF Admin

Lmao

It is a bit weird, I agree. But I think It's the angle of "there is no good evidence, so therefore I have no reason to believe it." Like, if I told you that there's a massive flying tea kettle somewhere between Jupiter and Venus, most would simply say "no, there isn't. That doesn't make sense." Sure, they could say "Maybe, I don't know," but most would just discard the notion altogether. I'm not really an atheist myself, but I think that's at least one of the general thoughts behind it.

You need proof. You have none. Atheists don't need proof. That is why they answer no. Why are you Muslim and not agnostic then? Why do you answer yes? It's just your belief, correct? Isn't yes just as dumb as no? Maybe you have unfalsifiable proof...

There's nothing illogical about Atheism but okay and not every atheist thinks like that.

its a personal issue, many are angry, its a subconcious tantrum being thrown at God without even knowing it in some cases

Nope because it was never posited as something with substantial evidence, so therefore it can be disregarded all together,

I can't understand how someone can take this word salad argument seriously

1.Zapravo mogu se definisati, svemoguće znači da se može učiniti sve što je logički moguće a moralno savršeno je da ima moralnu savršenu prirodu i da je temelj objektivnog morala.

@@pauldirc.. 1. This is just a logical fallacy, appealing to ridicule and not refuting an argument.

​@@kenandzafic3948 I believe it's only a logial fallacy if it is meant as an argument... I'm pretty sure the statement from @pauldirac was just a expression of his opinion.

I know right? How can you have moral perfection WITHOUT GOD... That is silly, oh wait.. 😁

Then you are a bad mathematician

Naturally, such a simple yet solid and intelligent argument would come from _Danny DeWario,_ one of the great philosophers of our time.

Well its less then it was but still an issue. Though it is lessening as time passes so I'm hoping it will lesson even more in the coming years.

A fellow Christian 🙏🏼

I used to run an extension that hid the comments on almost all websites for years, it was absolutely pointless to read comments for years.. full of bots, trolls, community accounts, fake accounts, etc. It seems to have calmed down a bit recently but mostly the comment section is for folks who don't actually watch the videos but spout off nonsense...

Christians and Muslims are not brothers, your book calls my God a lair and just a man. You obviously are a kind and open person, but if you continue to reject Jesus as the One who atoned for your sins then you will experience the worse moment of your existence 1 second after you die.

@@qaz-fi1id How do you know Jesus claimed he was God and you have to believe in him for salvation?

@@qaz-fi1id Exactly one second, eh? And just how did you come by this information good sir?

@@UmerKhan-zy2sg We know Jesus claimed he was God, as he is a member of the divine trinity. Believing in the Holy Trinity is a key foundation of the Christian faith. I'll provide a brief intro, and outline the scripture that supports the Trinity, and that Jesus is, in fact, God in human form. I hope you can see that there is merit to the Christian world view and it's scripture, and truly consider this within your heart! Trinity definition: within the one being that is God, there exist eternally three co-equal, and co-eternal persons. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mono-theism is the biblical belief that there is only one God, and that the Trinity is made up of three distinct members of the Godhead that make up the one God. The word 'Trinity" is made up of "tri" and "unity" - three in one - three "who's" (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and one "what" (God). Isaiah 43:10 - "You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, besides me there is no god." *Is the Father God, actually God?* 1 Peter 1:2 - "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you." 1 Peter 1:3 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" *Is Jesus a member of the Trinity - is the son of God, God?* Matthew 3:16 - "And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Colossians 2:8 - "See to it that noone takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority." Titus 2:13 - "Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." Some will say that the above verse refers to two different people. Granville Sharp's rule explains this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nnh_gFv1zFc.html ^ 2 Peter 1:1 - To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." Does Jesus say that he is God? While having banter with the Jewish people who claimed that their father was Abraham, Jesus implied that he was greater than Abraham, which was considered a punishable crime to the Jewish people: John 8:58 - "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."" This not only means that Jesus was pre-existent before Abraham - it means that he was eternal. God's existence is the grounding of all reality, and Jesus said: "before Abraham was, I am". This is also a reference to God being called "the great I am". When foreshadowing his betrayal by Judas, Jesus says: John 13:19: "I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he." John 8:24: "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." Revelation 22:12: "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." This is supported by Revelation 1:8: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men." This is continued in John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen is glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." *Is the Holy Spirit a member of the Trinity?* Ephesians 4:30 - "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." The verse continues to list some things that you should not do, as they will bring sorrow to the Holy Spirit. You can't bring sorrow to non-persons. Matthew 28:19 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". 2 Corinthians 13:14 - "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." 1 Corinthians 12:4-5 - "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord." 1 Peter 1:2 - "Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." I hope this clears things up for you, man!

@@JamieTenikoffI appreciate your response. The problem is that the idea of the trinity came about 300 years (!!!) after the passing of Jesus, in the council of nicea. The Bible we have today has no authentic transmission back to Jesus. We have literally no proof the Bible is what Jesus preached. Not only that but there is also a mystery surrounding who wrote the gospels. If you look at the authors, it says ‘Gospel ACCORDING to’ Mark, John, etc etc so it’s not even them as the authors. Furthermore the Bible we have is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. (Aramaic -> Hebrew -> Greek -> English). We have no manuscripts in the actual Aramaic which Jesus Peace be upon him spoke. Any honest student of textual criticism knows how much is lost in translation, let alone transactions of translations. To prove my claim that even early Christian’s (those before the Council of Nicea 300 years after the passing Jesus) had differing theologies, I want to show you a sect from the early days of Christians who were classic Unitarians. They believed in ONE god, the father, and Jesus as a normal man a prophet. Nowhere was this concept of trinity or divinity of Jesus. Peter himself says: “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” - Acts 2:22. AND Jesus himself said: “The Father is greater than I” John 14:28 And Jesus said “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” - Mathew 24 36 If you think I’m lying on these quotes please open the Bible yourself and see. We Muslims love and respect Jesus as a powerful servant and prophet of God, who god sent to perform miracles. No Muslim can be a Muslim without believing in and loving Jesus just like we love Prophets Adam, Moses, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc etc and ending with Prophet Muhammad. Why would God send prophets throughout history and then suddenly decide to show up in a human body? We believe God was always in the heavens and he sent Prophets from the beginning of times, and Jesus was one his strongest and most loved and mightiest prophets, may peace be upon him. Look how much more sense our theology makes. Please, I urge you my brother to open your eyes and see through these lies that have been schemed and plotted. The truth is apparent. We have no proof for the authenticity of the Bible. We have early Christian fathers themselves rejecting trinity and divinity of Jesus. It was all a political game by the Roman church 300 years after Jesus. Please open your eyes. I know you are sincere, and will consider my words. May God guide us all to His way and the Truth. Amen.

@@faithnreason446 I don’t care what philosophers believe. I care what they can demonstrate.

@@faithnreason446 yes it’s an interesting thought experiment but does nothing to prove the existence of god(s) in my opinion, or lend and credence to any of the theistic world views.

@@faithnreason446 this isn’t in my own words and I’m paraphrasing, but my understanding of the ontological argument (I’m open to correction) is that god is a being which no greater can be conceived. Honestly I think I was confusing this with the Kalam argument… I still don’t think that this is convincing in any way… why would anyone care what you can imagine or conceive in your own imagination? You imagine a ‘super man’… I imagine a being that’s a ‘super SUPER man’ so on and so forth… Unless you can demonstrate that these supposed beings interact with reality in any way then it remains a thought experiment. How would you demonstrate that something like this interacts with our world in any detectable way? I don’t know… but if a being so great that I can’t even conceive of exists, he should provide some evidence that would convince the most hardened skeptics… yet there is none. He would provide more than a vapid thought experiment as evidence for his existence .

@@faithnreason446 no. atheists would not agree with your definition of a god or gods. No proposed god has ever met its burden of proof of existence. No biblical prophecy has ever come to pass ( no more than Nostradamus’ predictions or Edgar Casey or any of the other charlatans through history) nor is there any historical evidence for any god or gods having ever existed outside of human imagination. Jesus, Muhammad and all the rest are false prophets and god is a mere superstition. Philosophy, reason, logical arguments etc.. are only valuable so far as they can be demonstrated, repeated and tested with the same results in the real world. What test can you provide to prove your particular brand of Christianity/superstition? Apologies if you’re not Christian. There are so many religions that all disagree with one another and conflict within themselves. Despite my best inquiries no one has ever provided any evidence for any of the 10,000+ gods invented by the human imagination. If you can prove your specific flavor of god/religion with verifiable, testable evidence you’d be the first human ever to do so. What knowledge do you have access to that I don’t? How do you test the things that you claim to know if they’re true and accurate? Why shouldn’t I believe in Wotan or Thor? Zeus or Poseidon? The ‘evidence’ for them being real Is just as strong (weak) as the most recent invention, Yahweh. Does anyone have proof? Or do people have to speak for their ‘god’ since he is too weak or nonexistent to do it himself?

I was thinking the exact thing. There is no proof that such a god exists, it’s all hearsay. I feel like this video was biased and only considered things which supported the argument.

Maximal greatness is objective. -Omniscience -Omnipotence -Omnibenevolent

@@bipn_406 Omnibenevolence is the most subjective trait you could have listed. The others have serious logical issues that make them contradictory. Also, claiming objectivity does not mean it is anything beyond a concept, that is to say something that is actually real in the actual world.

A lot of your questions are answered with further research into the complete ontological argument. I wouldn't expect a video like this to provide a full, complete explanation for every little detail and axiom. It's intended more as an introduction, a general outline.

@@lightbeforethetunnel You think too little of me. I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy, and I have done an intense amount of reading on the ontological argument. I am aware of the different variants that exist of the argument, and the strengths and weaknesses of each. I am aware of how many authors respond to these questions too, but the answers are far from satisfactory, and often not coherent. Of course, providing a debunking here is outside the scope of the video itself. The video never claims to be an introduction to the topic, nor is it formatted to function as such.

@@angelmendez-rivera351 Hi. If I can ask, what do you work in, or are you still studying?

@@angelmendez-rivera351 make a video debunking it... even if you're wrong

@@murderonmarz1647 I would like to, but I am not currently available to make videos on YT.

Nicely said.

Slightly confused, that is Pascals wager, and can be applied to all religions. If you really want to be safe, you should also start worshiping the greek pantheon and meditating to become like Buddha, and even that won't make you completely safe from being condemned to an eternal damnation in a different religion

Wisdom!

The Greek pantheon isn't logically viable. Yahweh is, being that he states there is no other God but him and therefore no greater being can call itself God to be "greater". Yahweh holds up to logic

@@nevermind824, Yahweh said you shall have no other god before me, whereby he acknowledges the existence of other gods. He just thinks he is the greatest god who is jealous of other gods. Jealousy is one of the 7 Cardinal Sins.

@@pmaitrasm Humans think there are other Gods. Yahweh calls them "false idols". Don't try with that silly argument. Deuteronomy 32 "They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God- gods they had not known, gods that recently appeared, gods your ancestors did not fear."

What I find remarkable about atheists is the amount of lies their told about my faith Christianity and evolutions narrative. Why the need to lie if the account is true ?

Haven't you stopped yet being an atheist?

@@jackieramsbottom7458 Most Christians believe in evolution.

@@LomuHabana lies !! And more lies !!! Why do your lying teacher's let muslims believe westerners are Christian Because their country used to be christian?? 90 % of Westerners no longer identify themselves as christian.. Stop spreading lies!! Since the west abandoned Christian teaching christian values and beliefs in schools and in social structure the became more and more wicked..It's because they rejected Christianity is the reason the west is so wicked... No wonder millions of Muslims are leaving Islam every year. They tell us constantly once they checked outside Muslim sources they found mountains of lies spread by your teachers and apologists.. Very very soon Islam will stop being the fastest growing religion, which was only because of birth rate, and become a religion on the wain . The lies Muslims have spread about my faith and yours are being exposed more and more each day..

@@jackieramsbottom7458 It‘s not lies, it‘s common sense. I have religious family and friends, they all believe in evolution, when I used to be religious Christian, I believed in evolution too. It is a scientific fact. The only Christians who deny evolution are radical evangelicals. And what your telling me about Islam? Islam is worse than Christianity, yes, never disputed that.

Kant strawmaned Anselm's argument. Though in his defense, the full original texts probably weren't available to him. Unfortunately this video almost sounds more like Kant's strawman rather than what Anselm actually said.

Could you elaborate, please? (genuine question, I'm dumb)

@@user-rt6fq8wk1dHe's sneakily defining god as "A being that exists" because his definition of Maximally great being requires whatever entity possesses this quality to have it in every possible world. What this means is: you can replace every instance of Maximally great being in the argument with "Being that exists" because, in particular, that is one of it's properties. Lets try doing that: 1. It is possible that a being that exists, exists. 2. A being that exists, exists in some possible world. 3. If a being that exists, exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds (This sounds ridiculous, and is the reason why existence is never a predicate) 4. If a being that exists. exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. A being that exists, exists in the actual world 6. Therefore, a being that exists, exists. (No shit, Sherlock) It's a classic example of question begging because he's assuming that which he wants to prove but, pray tell, why would anyone assume that such a being exists in the first place? /watch?v=853uLRNlMHo This video explains it very well if you want to go a bit more in depth.

I Will

1. The idea of great being a subjective term itself is a subjective term from that type of post-modern view so you can make that statement, but you cannot argue with it as its self refuting. And we exist in a world where Platonists are a thing among other philosophical ideas of truth. 2. Anthromorphizing it is fine because most people view man as created in the image of God so anthromorphizing God is not just natural but would be religiously true. A God that resembles man and intuits rationality and emotion and other qualities to a much higher degree while creating scientific laws sensible to man can only be described in anthromorphizing.

​​@@BioChemistryWizard I don't much care for modern philosophy anymore.. Have a good day

Me too. God bless ♥

Which God do you believe in?

@@ThomasCranmer1959 The only real one. There’s only one God that could reasonably exist, that’s the Abrahamic God or a being equivalent to him.

@@follower2thelord43 I don't follow the abrahamic faiths and I reject your claim. Very obviously, the only Gods that could reasonably exist are Odin and the Aesir or beings equivalent to them.

@@Alexander_Kale Edgy

Come home to Jesus, brother!

Jesus loves you, died for your sins, and wants you to be saved. The earliest sources we have about Jesus aligns more with what Christians say not Muslims. Jesus is Lord!

Your works can’t reconcile you with the infinite God. Jesus is only way

Is it greater to be morally perfect or morally imperfect? - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos By what metric? Have we decided that because humans don't like immoral things, that greatness implies morality?

@@danielhortonmusic No, because what is moral or immoral is independent of personal preference. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos Which would render the very notion of morality to be completely pointless, and is also not even close to representative of how moral discourse actually goes. Regardless, you never answered the question. By what metric are you concluding that it is 'greater' to be moral (which according to Craig literally means nothing more than 'in accordance with whatever God's nature happens to be') than 'immoral'? How can you defend that hidden premise non-circularly and without it ending up just being an assertion that nobody who doesn't already agree with it would have any reason to accept it?

​@@drcraigvideosThats some insane mental gymnastics you're doing there. So what you're saying is that morality is independent of humans and even if the world where to end today, it would somehow still be around like gravity? Don't you think morality is, perhaps, influenced and defined by our social interactions and so, it ultimately depends on the goals that we as a society strive towards? That is to say, when we say an action is morally "right", we mean it within a framed context and with respect to a specified goal. For example, if we wish to raise our children into decent adults, then it necccesarily follows that we should probably not torture or hit them when they're kids. What we perceive as "objective moral values" like: Killing is bad, respect your elders, don't eat babies, etc.. are nothing more than universal practices that emerge in any social group when the ultimate goal is to grow as a society and reproduce (which most of us do).

First of all, the attributes ascribed to a maximally great being are attributes that Zeus does not have. Second, Zeus exists among a pantheon of gods. If they are all truly gods, then they are all maximally great beings. However, there cannot be multiple maximally great beings because having multiple maximally great beings goes against the logic of being a maximally great being. So, if Zeus exists a pantheon of gods, then he cannot be a maximally great being. Zeus exists among a pantheon of gods. Therefore, Zeus is not a maximally great being.

@@Theos_thinker Erm... Zeus is the king of the gods, ruler over and greater than them all. Sounds pretty much the same as god and the angels - I mean, Satan was able to rebel and attempt to overthrow God, so he must be a lesser god himself.

@@najaB76 🤓☝️: Erm, actually, I think you missed my point. Zeus lives among a pantheon of gods. If they are all truly gods. They are all maximally great. See, that’s where the problem is. Multiple maximally great beings goes against the logic of being maximally great. Zeus, who exists among a pantheon of gods, cannot, therefore, be maximally great. Zeus could certainly be the king of the gods. However, even within Greek mythology, Zeus does not hold the attributes necessary to be a maximally great being. Regarding Satan, from a secular perspective, one could say that Satan is a type of “lesser god,” though that wouldn’t really be a good way to define him. He was created (his being, not his rebellion). So, satan should not be defined as “a god” because he is not maximally great like how God is. Plus, Satan didn’t overthrow God. Satan, in his God-given free will, chose to rebel against God and others followed. In a similar way, we also rebel against God.

@@Theos_thinker "Plus, Satan didn’t overthrow God. Satan, in his God-given free will, chose to rebel against God and others followed." Correct. Because he wasn't able to overthrow God because he wasn't as powerful as God. In the same way that Zeus was the most powerful of all the pantheon of gods: _"Even the gods who are not his natural children address him as Father, and all the gods rise in his presence."_ Returning to the question of Ontological Argument, God clearly has two heads since "Two heads are better than one". You'll counter with "that's just a saying, it doesn't literally mean that a being with two heads is better than a being with one head", to which I would counter how in what way is omnipotence, omnibenevolence or omnipresence "better" than their alternatives? You've assigned them the value of being better because you like the sound of them. And I've assigned two-headedness the value of being better because I like the sound of it. God is clearly a Ravens fan, because to a Ravens fan a god that likes the Ravens is better than one who isn't a fan of the Ravens (or wasn't a fan of any team at all). After all, why else would Ravens fans pray to God if he isn't a fan - I mean, if he supports the Packers then their prayers would be wasted, so he *must* be a Ravens fan. (Repeat for any and every preference that people have).

Exactly, it proves the nonexistence of God just as readily as it proves the existence of God. Replace 0) with "Possibly, God does not exist."

Creation Points to a Creator.( Period)

@@lionheart6535 Canyons point to water in motion, mountains point to plate tectonics, living things point to evolution, and your world view points to your parents.

@@ChemEDan If you're making a joke it's no even funny. But if you're making a claim then its funny. Your worldview points to God hating scientists. And these God hating scientists points to God. Deal with it.

@@lionheart6535 I don't hate God any more than you hate unicorns. It's just that neither of them exists. Deal with it. I can't stop laughing though; you're so convinced that you just happened to stumble on the one religion that's correct. You're no different than someone who truly believes in Poseidon. So silly, but it's even funnier because I know you're not joking.

Thanks for the thoughtful question, Ryan. Perhaps one of the most forceful ways to approach it is by looking at what is required in order to reject the conclusion: one must reject the first premise (since all other premises and the conclusion follow from it). In order to reject the first premise, one must assert its negation - that it is not possible that a maximally great being exists. For most people, this seems plausibly false. Merely thinking about creation and the appearances of design in nature and our moral experiences, these tend to invoke in us a sense that a maximally great being's existence is at least possible. And there don't seem to be any comparably good reasons to believe that a maximally great being's existence is impossible. So, one is rational to conclude that it is possible that a maximally great being exists. Unfortunately, you err in thinking that "possibility of existence" is synonymous with "the lack of evidence for non-existence." Imagine a closed box in front of you. You want to know if there's anything inside of the box. But you have no evidence of the box's contents. The lack of evidence for something not being in the box is not positive evidence for something's being in the box. Similarly, the lack of evidence for God's non-existence does not constitute evidence for the possibility of his existence. Rather, we have independent arguments such as the Kalam, Leibnizian, and Moral arguments for that. Finally, you say that you can imagine a world in which God doesn't exist. Dr. Craig addresses this exact objection in Question of the Week #380: "I think the problem with all such Bizarro ontological arguments is that your second premiss 2) But there is a possible world in which God does not exist. begs the question by assuming that the concept of maximal greatness is incoherent. Just because we can imagine a world in which a single particle (or whatever) exists gives no reason for thinking that such a world is metaphysically possible. These scenarios are, as it were, merely pictures with a title underneath “World in which Only a Single Particle Exists.” The fact that I can imagine and label such pictures gives no reason at all to declare them metaphysically possible. To do that, you have to know first that maximal greatness is impossible." www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/bizarro-ontological-arguments Blessings, RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos 1 It's possible for a maximally great being not to exist. 2 In some possible world, a maximally great being does not exist. 3 A maximally great being must exist in all possible worlds. 4 Therefore a maximally great being does not exist. Amazing the bulldookie you peddle.

@@bartbannister394 First, the argument is invalid because the conclusion doesn't follow logically from the premises. You need another couple of premises to spell out the fact that if a maximally great being doesn't exist in some possible world, then it doesn't exist in the actual world, which is what the conclusion is describing. Second, there's no reason to think the first premise is true. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then (1) is false. So, why think its existence is impossible? - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos My argument is more valid because there is no physical evidence a maximally great being exists in this world. All the evidence, and I mean all of it for the last 13 1/2 billion years, is proven to be natural. So it is possible a maximally great being does not exist, in this world.

@@bartbannister394 An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

1. Morality is perfectly consistent, and we know objective morality through moral intuition. 2. The problem of evil has serious problems. 1) We cannot know whether from God's perspective this looks like an imperfect world because we have limited intelligence. 2) Even if we accept that this is an imperfect world, it is still possible that God has good enough reasons to create this world. 3) Without God, there is no objective evil, which is why the argument is self-refuting. 4) The Theodicy of the Big Story by Josh Rasmussen provides a very good justification for the existence of evil. 3. The only way to disprove the argument is to show that God is metaphysically impossible, good luck with that.

@@kenandzafic3948 Very good outline, I myself find it interesting how the ontological argument is the perfect battleground for moral relativity/objectivity ideas. Really shows how integral those ideas are to basic thought and factional mindset.

I can't understand how someone can take this word salad argument seriously

1. No this is not a special request because you are confusing qualitative infinity with quantitative infinity, Pica is something limited by space and therefore we cannot possibly have an infinite number of anything and God's knowledge is not quantitative infinity but simply means that God knows all propositions. 2. We have absolutely no intuition about what makes Pizza good, but we have very strong intuitions about some basic qualitative values ​​like power, knowledge, and moral perfection, and if you want to disprove our intuitions, the burden of proof is on you to show that they are false. 3. If a hypothesis is intuitive, it increases the probability that that hypothesis is true, and without good reason to doubt our intuitions, it is completely rational to accept it. 4. No, this is not the beginning of the question because the first premise still leaves the possibility that the existence of God is metaphysically impossible. 5. No man you just misrepresented the argument to make it easier to refute because the argument does not define God into existence because a necessary entity does not have to exist because it can be metaphysically impossible. 6. The reason why the argument is used is because it is valid because if you had a serious criticism you would not misrepresent the argument. 7. No. Craig, for example, uses mostly the same arguments in debates and his opponents often do not refer to the arguments, so much about the apologists being dishonest.

@@kenandzafic3948 Thanks for your reply. I have to say, not a single one of your counter points are convincing or discredit what I said. I will go through the list so people can see how your counter is easily refutable. 1. You responded to my assertion of special pleading by using more special pleading. Lol. You decided that quantitative and qualitative infinities are different. I’ll let you try to define the difference between the two, but even if you do, you still just decided that it’s necessary for one of them to exist but not the other. You claim that pizza is limited by space but knowledge isn’t. You have to prove that. That is not an axiom a critical thinker will just accept. I’m convinced that it is entirely possible that information i.e. knowledge is limited by space. 2. We do have intuition about what makes pizza good. More pepperonis. More cheese. “But wait!” You say! Some people don’t think that makes pizza better! Okay. Some people don’t think that more knowledge, jealousy, unforgivingness, and damning people to an eternity in hell makes a god better either. The claim that one is more intuitive than the other is just a claim. Your tribe might thing it’s intuitive, but it is not. The many religions of the world are proof of this. 3. Intuition does NOT make something more likely to be true. This is only maybe true if a mind with the intuition is well educated, intelligent, logical, experienced, and therefore has accurate models of the world around it with an ability to extrapolate. It took until 1600’s for a theory of gravity because it is unintuitive. People thought objects fell faster when heavier. People thought the world was flat because it was intuitive. People thought the earth was the center of the universe, because it was intuitive. In the converse, there is nothing intuitive about quantum mechanics, yet its theories are demonstrably true. Same with relativity theory. I’m open to you proving me wrong on this, but my guess is you only think this is true because “it’s intuitive!” 4. It is begging the question. The argument uses the claim that it is possible that god exists and therefore he exists. Conversely, atheists, Craig claims, must assert that it is impossible for god to exist. You missed my point of the overloaded definition of the word “possible” here. Agnostic atheists may say that it’s “possible” god exists, but by that they mean they don’t have the data to suggest it’s impossible yet. Craig wants to use a different definition of “possible”, like a many-worlds-theorem definition where “possible” means it definitely exists in one of many worlds. This is a little trick used by the argument but it doesn’t work because no agnostic atheist would agree with that assertion. 5. I did not misrepresent the argument. You can assert that I misrepresented it, but you will need to show me EXACTLY where I misrepresented it. So far you have not been able to do that. 6. Nope. 7. Craig uses the shot-gun tactic in basically every single one of his debates. Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bart Ehrman, and many more.

@@Grasshoppa065 1. In fact, there is no special request, you cannot say that knowledge is limited by space, that would be a mistake in the category, while pizza is food by definition and therefore must be limited by space, otherwise it would not be pizza. 2. This is a bad analogy, it is clear that tastes in pizza differ while it is not the same with these basic qualities, here I can take a survey tomorrow and survey a hundred people and they will all agree that omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection are positive qualities and therefore it really has strong intuitive support. 3. This is just a logical error, proof by assertion, you really can't deny intuitions without proof, I mean you can, but it will make you extremely frivolous because you have to prove that our intuitions are wrong, otherwise we have no reason to doubt them, this is a basic thing from epistemology. 4.This is a misrepresentation of what I said because you have equated my claim that intuition is proof positive with the claim that intuition is the only evidence and cannot be wrong which is clearly not the same thing and you will have to do much better than these stupid straw arguments. 5. No, there is no trick here because it is a metaphysical possibility so your idea of ​​a confusing premise is just an illusion of your mind and as I said that premise is justified by our intuition and the atheist really has to claim that it is metaphysically impossible for God to exist in order to disproved the first premise. 6. In fact, I show you making mistake after mistake all the time. 7. Yes, and you confirmed it again, I mean if you misrepresent the argument again, then I really can't help but conclude that you are deliberately dishonest and that the truth is not your goal, because so far you have not raised any serious objection to the first premise and therefore to the argument. 8.Oh no don't use I don't know why you lie, in a debate with Sam Harris Craig defended two very simple statements and while Harris didn't answer a single point and just used red herrings, the same for Hitchens who is known to to talk about everything but the topic at hand or with Ehrman, who during the debate made numerous absurd objections that he himself does not believe, such as the claim that Jesus had a twin brother and the like.

@@kenandzafic3948 So, you’ve just agreed that this argument is just a bunch of assertions and you claim its my responsibility to prove the assertions wrong. Thank you for demonstrating to the audience that you do not know the first thing about logic.

I've always believed that creation requires a creator and that nothing produces nothing and that the world and universe is far too fine tuned for life. It's more of a difficulty for me to believe everything in existence appeared from nowhere by itself, from nothing.

@@Peter-kl8jg yes, you believe that but people also believe that earth is flat. In nature birth is the way life is created and a chicken gives birth to another chicken. Did you ever see a chicken materialize out of a vacuum? It is more likely that a collapsing universe gave birth to this universe and that the universe always existed than any imaginary super power that is indifferent and avoids interfering.

@@atursams6471 Yeah, but if the universe always existed in a constant cycle of collapse and rebirth, it still brings up the question of how that cycle began. Having no beginning can be considered just as unbelievable as the existence of God.

corruption of the old testament and the many type of torah the masoratic text the original hebrew the septuagint corruption the many stream of translation we dont know where many of them but just some survived translation the samaritan torah only 5 book of moses these three are disagree with each other in many places quran have no interpolation unlike bible that come in transmission period return to original text is the very purpose of bible textual criticism which indicate a problem in the journey its make sense to god resend a new book and then preserve it for real unlike bible and for the whole world bcz the book is preserve to end time genesis 5:31 septuagint said 753 years for lamech masoratic said 777 years for lamech samaritan said 653 years for lamech Transmission break #1 - Sometime between Moses (approx. 1300 BCE) and King Josiah (approx. 600 BCE) Transmission break #2 - Sometime between King Josiah (approx. 600 BCE) and Ezra (approx. 400 BCE) And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” [Hebrews 1:6] The above quotation is made by Paul in the New Testament and is citing Deuteronomy 32:43. masoratic doesnt have taht septuagint translate man in exodus to be 600.000 in numbers whiches being denied by scholars that men in exodus cannot be taht much or even surpass the 100.000 the septuagint miss passage some of jeremiah compare to dead sea scroll septuagint also have cainan as arphaxad child which not found in earlier manuscript and best manuscript taht used by church father and josephus 32:8 and 32:43. Even though we are comparing the same chapter of Deuteronomy, the texts never completely agree in all verses. Sometimes the DSS agree with the MT over the LXX, as in verse 32:43[ii], and sometimes the DSS agree with the LXX over the MT, as in verse 32:8[iii]. Genesis 16:16, Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born: Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael. And according to Genesis 21:5, Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born: Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. just talking about text differences not talking about the inconsistency factual error and ethical error in OT and NT the textual variant so many that is much more than the text in NT itself why bcz we have so many manuscript but of them from 1000 AD the most of differences are in spelling but the number of manuscript from 1000 ad are eclipses the the textual variation as if its just spelling, but the variant that was matters important and theologically effective and some of them stay inside the text for centuries and regarded a part of the text until scholars remove it, many scholars only regard the original autography to be innerant not the copy from the transmission bcz we cant deny its many differences interpolation changes and substraction as it happen in torah and NT is as it follow * the longer ending of Mark, see Mark 16 (Mark 16:9-20).400 ad addition approximately * Jesus sweating blood in Luke, Christ's agony at Gethsemane (Luke 22:43-44). * the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11). approximately 450 ad addition * an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8). late 4th century addition vast of kjv verse omitted and is the living proof of bible changes and corruption interpolation in bible is still inside the bible for centuries until scholars dissected it and choose the right reading so its not perfect since the get go but went through some porblem anonymous authors by NT Luke 10 is the only place where we find the account of Jesus sending a specific 70 (or 72) disciples to prepare the way before Him. The discrepancies in the number (70 or 72) come from differences found in approximately half of the ancient scrolls used in translation. The texts are nearly evenly divided between the numbers, and scholars do not agree on whether the number should be 70 or 72 earlier manuscript is sometimes have widely attested differences compare to modern bible for example in luke there is cainan as the son of arphaxad instead of selah now this thing was not in earlier manuscripts that used by josephus, eusibius , africanus and other early church father the interpolation of john the baptist as a mere warner of christ coming and no taht graet significant is christian interpolation to make jesus is more important figure the earlier manuscript Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. “yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. “ this word is not in earleir manuscript and in a luke 2:33,43 it said joseph and his mother marveled but other translation read his father and his mother marvelled the first reading inkjv is widely attested in majorit greek manuscript amd early latin copies and use by early saint and many manuscript and famous manuscript but modern translation choose the 2nd one contradiction in translation usually modern translator render the mistake or contradiction in old testament masoratic or even septuagint so theyreading is new reading which is corrected like 2 Samuel 21:19 the New NET translation also kjv and nkjv change that Elhanan killed the brother of goliath but many other translation said elhanan killed goliath the gittite and they follow masoratic amd septuagint several verses that fake were in bible for centuries until scholars take it out only after found earlier manuscript and compare them so its not pristine in the journey of transmission so taht we could have it without textual criticism which found the original word you can see your self about inconsistencies Remember that in the other Gospels, Jesus actually eats the Passover meal with his disciples before his arrest. John’s timing of the story is different - he has Jesus die before the Passover meal is eaten. Why did John’s author alter the story? We find a clue in the Gospel of John when he refers to Jesus as the “Lamb of God”: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” [John 1:29] We can see that in the Gospel of Matthew, Mary Magdalene is presented as having found the tomb empty, but after that she actually encountered Jesus as she was running away from the tomb. In the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene is also presented as having found the tomb empty. However, after she flees the tomb she doesn’t encounter Jesus but instead runs to the disciples and tells them that the body of Jesus had been stolen. Now, these two accounts of the resurrection are a contradiction; if Mary Magdalene met Jesus at the tomb, as Matthew says, then why did she report that the body had been stolen, according to John ?

@@monotheist.. Thank you for sharing.

Furthermore, a suggestion: I think it might be helpful to define your worldview by your observation, rather than to define your observations by on your worldview. For instance: we see evidence for God, therefore the God as substantiated by evidence exists; vs. We have conceptualized God, now let’s find evidence for his existence.

Yeah I don't think the pizza example was logical at all

Then do it

@@baguette7851 The base axioms of the argument are just completely unsupported. Why is "maximally great" defined the way it is? How can you determine if one being is "greater" than another? The given definition is completely arbitrary. Why is a being that exists in all possible worlds greater than one that only exists in one? What is meant by "morally perfect"? Morality is a famously very subjective topic, and doesn't make sense as a separate entity from human society. Morally perfect for one person might be morally abhorrent for another. Apparently these types of questions are enough for a maximally great pizza to be deemed as logically incoherent, so why isn't the same scrutiny applied to the definition of maximally great being? If these questions are answered somewhere else I'd be happy to hear an explanation but this video makes no effort to address these very basic problems. The assumption that an all powerful and all knowing being isn't logically incoherent isn't a trivial one. "Could an all powerful being create an object too heavy for itself too lift?" is a pretty obvious counterexample to that assumption, not that it's a particularly elegant one. An all knowing being would be able to know every possible future, but that's a contradiction to it being all powerful, since it could never perform an action that would be unpredictable. These aren't necessarily concrete counter proofs, but it demonstrates that the video is insufficient in explaining why an all powerful and all knowing being is logically coherent. Also, you can't define an object into existence. Something being "maximally great" is dependent on it existing in all possible worlds, not the other way around. You can't define a being as maximally great in a single possible world because it's definition necessitates an entire set of possible worlds. Any all knowing, all powerful, morally perfect being in a possible world isn't necessarily maximally great, you have to first demonstrate that it has to exist in all possible worlds before you can call it maximally great. What this video does is assume a being is maximally great without proving that it exists in all possible worlds, then decides that it therefore must exist in all possible worlds, completely circular reasoning. It would be like defining a perfect cat as soft, friendly, and orange, calling my cat a perfect cat because it's soft and friendly, then proclaiming it to be therefore orange. I'm sure someone has made a more elegant version of the ontological argument somewhere, but I've yet to find one that manages to fix these pretty basic problems in logic. So until someone can present a solution to these, I think it's fair to say that refuting this is pretty trivial.

If morality is subjective, then killing someone or inviting someone to dinner are moral equivalents, and selecting one or the other is merely a matter of preference. It would be shocking if you actually believed that. Most of us, however, including many atheists, recognize that these are not moral equivalents. What reason do you have to believe that these are moral equivalents? - RF Admin

It makes sense. But the real point it hinges on is if there are infinite other worlds. Which isn't being brought up. Reminds me of the most common argument for the existence of alien life: despite the INSANE amount of variables that need to be perfect for there to be life, the fact that the universe is so damn large (possibly infinite) that even those incredibly small odds of success can be turned into certainty of alien life. If the concept of there being a God is sound, and there is only this universe, then the ontological argument is moot in the conversation of God's existence. Then you can bring up other arguments or just take the plunge and say "I choose to believe/not believe in a God".

This argument is unintuitive, but it still logically works. Some logical things seem unintuitive, like the Monty-Hall Problem. It can be better phrased like this. Things are either impossible, meaning existing in no possible worlds, contingent, meaning existing in only some possible worlds, or necessary, meaning existing in all possible worlds. The video already gave some examples of impossible and contingent things. (A married bachelor is impossible, and a unicorn is contingent.) An example of a necessary being is a number. Numbers weren't created. They just exist. There is no possible world where they couldn't exist. God is not contingent because the definition of God is that he is necessary. If a being were contingent, then that wouldn't fit the definition of God and would not be God. God cannot be impossible, as stated in this video. The only other option is that God is necessary, meaning that he exists in all possible worlds, including this one.

here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xBmAKCvWl74.html

The difference between a unicorn and a maximally great being is that a maximally great being, if it existed, would exist necessarily. There's nothing about the concept of a unicorn that would imply necessary existence. So, if it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then it's not impossible for it to exist. This means that for the total set of possible ways in which reality could exist, God is part of one of those possible ways. And, according to S5 logic, if God is part of one of those possible ways, then he must exist necessarily, since the possibility in that way spreads logically to the rest of the ways. It's not a matter of causation, but rather logical entailment. The opponent of the conclusion, then, must show that it's actually impossible for God to exist, which is why it's been so difficult for opponents to respond. That's an enormous burden of proof! - RF Admin

It’s not a convenient definition of God, it’s literally just an All Powerful, All Knowing, Morally Perfect, Necessarily existent being, and if it’s metaphysically possible then it exists in some possible world, and therefore exists in every possible world, which includes the actual. Therefore God exists in the actual. That definition of God is basically what most people consider God to be anyways from the Kalam argument, the Moral argument, Lebiniz contingency argument etc, u can get all the attributes from separate arguments. So if u think it’s possible, then he exists. Not sleight of hand, if u don’t like it just say it’s not possible and give a reason why.

@@LarryRuffin-vy7hx It's a very convenient definition based on monotheistic tradition. How about multiple gods? Are they still all-powerful then? This is just philosophical, complex nonsense of no practical relevance.

@@LarryRuffin-vy7hx It's possible God doesn't exist, therefore he doesn't

@@s4ckm4n Even if one believes in multiple gods, then if they're not all knowing and all powerful they would have had to have been created also... by the "most high" all knowing, all powerful God (with a capital G). You basically always have to fall back on the original creator (God).

@@s4ckm4n It’s not logically possible for there to be multiple gods.

Why is it a laughing stock….?

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-d84IzPYrkPA.html

@@shiro703 Hey, a bit late on this one but just look up on youtube "Everything wrong with the modal onthological argument" by Philosophy Engineered, he explains it pretty well.

This video, for some reason, forgets to mention the most important attribute that a maximally great being would have. When I talk about the ontological argument, I like to define a maximally great being with five different attributes: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and most importantly, necessarily existent. That last one comes from Leibniz's argument from contingency, which says everything either exist contingently (dependent on something else and not guaranteed,) or is necessary in nature and therefore HAS to exist. An example of this would be numbers. Another example is pi. Is the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter equal to 3.1415 because that's just the way that our reality turned out and someone wanted it to be that way, or is it 3.1415 simply by nature of what it is? Obviously, it's the latter, and pi therefore is equal to 3.1415 in ALL possible universes, not just ours. Because existing by necessity is greater than existing contingently, a maximally great being would exist by necessity, which means if He exists in even just one possible world, then He exists in all of them.

I can't understand how someone can take this word salad argument seriously

1. No, he wouldn't be right and if you want to refute the argument you have to show which premise is wrong. 2. The God Delusion is one of the worst books defending atheism. Just look at Dawkins' critique of the ontological argument. 3. He tries to parody the argument by saying that the creation of the world by a God who does not exist is more glorious, but it is obvious that this is contradictory.

@@kenandzafic3948 just because you think in order to something to be perfect it need to exist doesn't mean it exist I think of world of No evil which is perfect. in order to be perfect it need to exist but it didn't exist and who say we can define god omnipotent, omniscient in order to define these you have to first assume that object exist in this case you are assuming god

@@pauldirc.. 1. Who says that a world without evil is perfect? 2. No, God does not have to exist to be defined as a necessary entity, here you have already shown that you do not understand the argument at all. There are numerous things that are necessary but metaphysically impossible; let's say numbers, laws of logic, maximum pizza and the like. 3. So the only way to disprove the argument is to deny the first premise and claim that the existence of God is metaphysically impossible.

Using modal logic, we can see that, for a necessary, self-sufficient being, either that being exists necessarily or it does not possibly exist. This further implies that if such a being is even possible, it must exist. The objector, then, in order to reject the conclusion, must show that it is not possible for a maximally great being to exist. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos I don’t need to show anything because I’m not making any claim. I’m just asking you how the possibility entails actuality? & why should anyone accept that God is a necessity & self-sufficient bien just by definition?

@Anon Ymous aren’t you also making an assumptive claim with your statement?

@Anon Ymous that it is impossible to prove what is possible, or that something can possibly exist. Your assumption is just as, if not more circular in its reasoning. Deductive logic in this assumption is invalid.

It's a silly argument, actually, which simply lacks imagination. Following its own logic, for instance, it is possible that in all possible worlds, a civilization (perhaps even us in the far distant future) might become technologically advanced enough to travel back in time and create the universe we live in today. If it seems intuitively paradoxical, we need only acknowledge our own cognitive limitations. Additionally, it would be no less paradoxical than either an infinite regress or the existence of a "maximally great being" who "caused" the universe to exist without being caused into existence himself. Indeed, in this hypothetical scenario, we actually have an example of a civilization (us) as well as knowledge of countless other potential planets throughout the universe where such a civilization could potentially, if not likely, exist. We could be living in a universe at this moment which will not even be "created" for billions or even trillions of years!

just because you think in order to something to be perfect it need to exist doesn't mean it exist I think of world of No evil which is perfect. in order to be perfect it need to exist but it didn't exist and who say we can define god omnipotent, omniscient in order to define these you have to first assume that object exist in this case you are assuming god

There are a number of independent arguments which motivate the acceptance of premise (1). For example, the argument from contingency demonstrates that a necessary being exists. Since a maximally great being would exist necessarily, the contingency argument supports premise (1). Or take the moral argument. If objective morality requires a morally perfect being to ground it, as the argument shows, then a morally perfect being exists. Since a maximally great being would be morally perfect, then we have yet another support for premise (1). By contrast, the one who rejects premise (1) must demonstrate that a maximally great being cannot possibly exist, which so far no one has been able to do. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos While you are correct that someone rejecting Premise 1 would need to demonstrate that a maximally great being cannot possibly exist, I have not rejected the premise. It is not a binary proposition. One can be convinced it is true, one can reject it as false, or one can simply say "I don't know". In my case, I find the argument unconvincing due to its numerous assumptions, and merely require further evidence or justification before accepting the conclusion. While you may find the argument from contingency convincing, I do not. For example, I am not convinced that an infinite regress is impossible. Or, to do full science fiction, who is to say that an advanced civilization - perhaps even us in the far distant future - did not go back in time and create the universe ourselves? Paradoxical? Perhaps? Impossible? Prove it. An even if I were to accept that there must be a necessary being, I am not aware of anything requiring it to be the God of classical theism. (Could the "need" for a "necessary being" simply be in part our determination to anthropomorphize things which we do not understand?) It might be an abstract principle or a fundamental aspect of reality that doesn't conform to our traditional notions of God. I acknowledge the limitations of human understanding and epistemic boundaries, and concede that we might not have the cognitive capacity to comprehend the ultimate nature of existence.

@@drcraigvideos While you are correct that someone rejecting Premise 1 would need to demonstrate that a maximally great being cannot possibly exist, I have not rejected the premise. It is not a binary proposition. One can be convinced it is true, one can reject it as false, or one can simply say "I don't know". In my case, I find the argument unconvincing due to its numerous assumptions, and merely require further evidence or justification before accepting the conclusion. While you may find the argument from contingency convincing, I do not. For example, I am not convinced that an infinite regress is impossible. Or, to do full science fiction, who is to say that an advanced civilization - perhaps even us in the far distant future - did not go back in time and create the universe ourselves? Paradoxical? Perhaps? Impossible? Prove it. And even if I were inclined to accept that there must be a necessary being, I am not aware of anything requiring it to be the God of classical theism. Could the "need" for a "necessary being" simply be in part our determination to anthropomorphize things which we do not understand? Might it be instead an abstract principle or a fundamental aspect of reality that doesn't conform to our traditional notions of God? In light of these and other possibilities, it may be important to acknowledge the limitations of human understanding and concede that we might not have the cognitive capacity to comprehend the ultimate nature of existence. Ultimately, the ontological argument appears to be little more that a clever exercise in wordplay, relying upon linguistic manipulations and conceptual gymnastics as opposed to rigorous empirical observation or logical deduction from facts about the world, in order to essentially "define" a god into existence. While this approach may resolve potential cognitive dissonances in those who might otherwise struggle to maintain a cherished belief in something bereft of any real actual evidence, it is unconvincing to those of us who are less inclined to accept such beliefs without empirical ground. The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to justify believing in it. Thus, while the ontological argument and the argument from contingency may hold appeal for some due to their ability to provide conceptual coherence to certain beliefs, they ultimately fall short of meeting the rigorous standards of evidence and justification demanded by those who prioritize empirical observation and logical deduction.

@@drcraigvideos While you are correct that someone rejecting Premise 1 would need to demonstrate that a maximally great being cannot possibly exist, I have not rejected the premise. It is not a binary proposition. One can be convinced it is true, one can reject it as false, or one can simply say "I don't know". In my case, I find the argument unconvincing due to its numerous assumptions, and merely require further evidence or justification before accepting the conclusion. While you may find the argument from contingency convincing, I do not. For example, I am not convinced that an infinite regress is impossible. Or, to do full science fiction, who is to say that an advanced civilization - perhaps even us in the far distant future - did not go back in time and create the universe ourselves? Paradoxical? Perhaps? Impossible? Prove it. And even if I were inclined to accept that there must be a necessary being, I am not aware of anything requiring it to be the God of classical theism. Could the "need" for a "necessary being" simply be in part our determination to anthropomorphize things which we do not understand? Might it be instead an abstract principle or a fundamental aspect of reality that doesn't conform to our traditional notions of God? In light of these and other possibilities, it may be important to acknowledge the limitations of human understanding and concede that we might not have the cognitive capacity to comprehend the ultimate nature of existence. Ultimately, the ontological argument appears to be little more that a clever exercise in wordplay, relying upon linguistic manipulations and conceptual gymnastics as opposed to rigorous empirical observation or logical deduction from facts about the world, in order to essentially "define" a god into existence. While this approach may resolve potential cognitive dissonances in those who might otherwise struggle to maintain a cherished belief in something bereft of any real actual evidence, it is unconvincing to those of us who are less inclined to accept such beliefs without empirical ground. The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to justify believing in it. Thus, while the ontological argument and the argument from contingency may hold appeal for some due to their ability to provide conceptual coherence to certain beliefs, they ultimately fall short of meeting the rigorous standards of evidence and justification demanded by those who prioritize empirical observation and logical deduction.

@@drcraigvideos While you are correct that someone rejecting Premise 1 would need to demonstrate that a maximally great being cannot possibly exist, I have not rejected the premise. It is not a binary proposition. One can be convinced it is true, one can reject it as false, or one can simply say "I don't know". In my case, I find the argument unconvincing due to its numerous assumptions, and merely require further evidence or justification before accepting the conclusion. While you may find the argument from contingency convincing, I do not. For example, I am not convinced that an infinite regress is impossible. Or, to do full science fiction, who is to say that an advanced civilization - perhaps even us in the far distant future - did not go back in time and create the universe ourselves? Paradoxical? Perhaps? Impossible? Prove it. And even if I were inclined to accept that there must be a necessary being, I am not aware of anything requiring it to be the God of classical theism. Could the "need" for a "necessary being" simply be in part our determination to anthropomorphize things which we do not understand? Might it be instead an abstract principle or a fundamental aspect of reality that doesn't conform to our traditional notions of God? In light of these and other possibilities, it may be important to acknowledge the limitations of human understanding and concede that we might not have the cognitive capacity to comprehend the ultimate nature of existence. Ultimately, the ontological argument appears to be little more that a clever exercise in wordplay, relying upon linguistic manipulations and conceptual gymnastics as opposed to rigorous empirical observation or logical deduction from facts about the world, in order to essentially "define" a god into existence. While this approach may resolve potential cognitive dissonances in those who might otherwise struggle to maintain a cherished belief in something bereft of any real actual evidence, it is unconvincing to those of us who are less inclined to accept such beliefs without empirical ground. The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to justify believing in it. Thus, while the ontological argument and the argument from contingency may hold appeal for some due to their ability to provide conceptual coherence to certain beliefs, they ultimately fall short of meeting the rigorous standards of evidence and justification demanded by those who prioritize empirical observation and logical deduction.

only if you were God 😂

Youre not maximally powerful and all encompassing

//There is a HUGE categorical difference between impossible, possible, and actual -- and blending the possible with the actual is quite absurd// It's not entirely clear what you mean by "blending." But, in any case, it's true according to the modal categories you name that everything which is actual is possible. If they were not possible, then they could not be actual. Things are only actual if they are also possible. The reason the argument is able to yield actual from possible is because of the laws of modal logic, which ensures that any necessary being, if possible, is actual, including God. Since this is so, the objector, if he wants to demonstrate that God does not exist, must show that his existence is impossible. As Dr. Craig has noted, this is a very heavy burden indeed. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos Actually, it's a much more subtle critique than that. Let's ignore other critiques about the logical incoherence of the properties a maximally great being (i.e. how an omnipotent being can create a being with free will but simultaneously be omniscient enough to know that beings fate). That which is in the category of the impossible, i.e. logically incoherent, is not in the category of what is possible. Okay. So, a thing that is in the category of being actual is possible, but no longer exists in the category of possibility. There is a categorical difference. We can make claims about how possible a thing is but we must be careful not to say that because something *seems* to have possible properties and maximally exists in every possiblity, it jumps from the realm of possibility to actual. So, categorically, we can say every thing inside a set is possible and internally coherent -- however, 100% of what is actual is possible, but 100% of what is possible is not out of necessity actual. Breaking down that barrier between categories is bad, otherwise we start to say a Santa with the properties of Santa exists in possibility and is therefore necessarily actual. Therefore, the conclusion a maximally great being is actual, is in fact a category mistake.

@@Enkarashaddam //So, a thing that is in the category of being actual is possible, but no longer exists in the category of possibility. There is a categorical difference.// According to modal logic, this is false. Everything which is actual is also possible. Things which are actual do not lose the modal status of being possible in virtue of being actual. In other words, things which are actual belong to both sets: the set of that which is actual and the set of that which is possible. The Santa analogy doesn't work because Santa is not conceived of as a maximally great being. Moreover, we can trace, historically, the legendary development from the real human St. Nicholas (270-343AD) to the stories of Santa Claus. Mere humans are contingent beings, not necessary ones. One might say, "But we can conceive of a character like Santa Claus with maximally great properties. That doesn't mean he exists." But, as was the case in Dr. Craig's debate with Lewis Wolpert, this is merely to call God by a different name. Once you say that it's possible that a maximally great being exists - whatever else you call it - it follows from modal logic that it exists *unless* you can show that its existence is impossible. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos At this point I have to point out that you are purposefully mis-interpreting and mis-representing my critique. The way I laid it out is very clear and not open to misinterpretation. We must be careful not to confuse coherence with every possible world simply because they both have the word possible in them. I clearly laid out that stating 100% of that which is actual existed in a possible world IS true. But once it becomes actual it is not a possible world anymore. It is THE world. You're statement that something can be actual and possible is actually a confusion between coherence and possible worlds. You really mean to say it is actual AND coherent. The error is you are trying to reverse the logic to say 100% of possible worlds are necessarily actual which is FALSE. No possible world is actual, by definition. Your criticism of my Santa analogy is weak because I specifically said a Santa with the properties of Santa. St. Nicholas does not have, or did he ever have, the properties of Santa. Come on, you know this. You plead a special case for the maximally great being, missing the point that the form of the ontological argument itself is flawed. By arguing that anything possible is necessarily actual you are actually importing enormous levels of every possible insanity into your worldview of what is real.

This is not a problem

Because He is Lord of all worlds, if He is not then he is not God. Yes, also the God of the multiverse.

There is a philosophical term called "Necessity". If God is not necessary, rather contingent, then he isn't actually maximally great, therefore he God necessarily has to exist in all possible worlds. Let's use 2 + 2 for example, it is possible for 2+2=4 to be true, if so then it is true in one possible world, if it is indeed true then it has to exist in all possible worlds due to the law of non contradiction, if it is indeed true in all worlds then it's true in our world. Therefore 2+2=4. Now let's use the opposite of that. It is impossible for 2+2=5 to be true (does not exist in any world) therefore 2+2=5 is false due to it's logical incoherence. "Why could there not be a world in which that being does not exist while it does in the other" - That would be a contradiction. It's like saying "why can't a married bachelor be false in one world and true in the other?" It's because truths cannot contradict, God cannot be contingent as contingent things cannot create another contingent thing due to it's infinite regression, and if God is contingent then he isn't a maximally great being. God cannot fail to exist. It's either that God is impossible or God is necessary.

@@grilledcheese2100 That cleared it up perfectly! Now it makes sense. Thanks a million, because I've been struggling with this for weeks!

@@wspek Great! Well if you have any other questions, just let me know.

@@grilledcheese2100 That's not correct, because you are describing logical necessity. Since existence is not a predicate and cannot be included in the very definition of a thing, there is no logical contradiction in the claim "God does not exist in some possible world". And that is the fundamental problem with this notion of 'metaphysical necessity' as something distinct from logical necessity. It is simply not possible to ever substantiate.

Your comment seems to make the common confusion between "possible world" and "universe." A possible world is just the way all of reality could have been. So, if Hillary Clinton had won the US presidential election in 2016 rather than Donald Trump, that would have been a different possible world. A possible world is not some universe external to ours. Moreover, if God does not stand in temporal relations, then he could never have gone from "not having created" to "having created," since this describes a temporal succession. This is why Dr. Craig's view is that God was timeless without creation and then entered into temporal relations at the moment of creation. Of course, being an immaterial being, God is not a spatial entity (though, the second person of the Trinity did take on human flesh, so one could say that he was as much a spatial entity in the incarnation as we are). However, this is all really beside the point, since the ontological argument doesn't really pertain to those issues. Rather, the issue is whether or not God's existence is possible. If so, then, according to the laws of modal logic, it's necessarily true that God exists. The one who wants to deny this conclusion is then saddle with the very tough task of demonstrating that God's existence is in fact impossible. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos Right, I did conflate the 2, point taken. But I fail to see what difference that makes. We still don’t know if a maximally great being can exist in the first place. The first premise includes ‘if’ and ‘can’. But to my point, god exists outside of space and time and all possible worlds consist of space and time, then where/how does that allow god existing? Then you talk of god becoming flesh with absolutely no foundation. John Lennox does that same dance. He’ll talk very convincingly and elequently of first causes and the beginning of the universe, or world, or whatever term he uses, and then says at the end that that’s how we know Jesus died on the cross for our sins. It’s a huge leap to an unsubstantiated claim. Your last sentence is the problem I have with this whole question. The whole proposition just sounds like sidestepping the need to demonstrate god in the first place and shift the burden. Seriously, if god wanted to be known, and was maximally great, wouldn’t god’s presence be undeniable? Rather than leave us playing ‘what if’.

@@markoshun //But to my point, god exists outside of space and time and all possible worlds consist of space and time, then where/how does that allow god existing?// This again conflates possible worlds with physical universes. Imagine that God decided not to create anything and, therefore, existed alone forever. There's no space and time, yet this is a possible world, which is, again, defined as the way reality could have been. Or, let's say God decided to create a handful of unembodied souls. Again, this would be a possible world without a physical universe. Bottom line: possible world ≠ a physical universe. //Then you talk of god becoming flesh with absolutely no foundation. John Lennox does that same dance. He’ll talk very convincingly and elequently of first causes and the beginning of the universe, or world, or whatever term he uses, and then says at the end that that’s how we know Jesus died on the cross for our sins. It’s a huge leap to an unsubstantiated claim.// The incarnation of Christ (God taking on flesh) isn't anywhere mentioned in this video. However, Dr. Craig has defended Christ's incarnation many times. You can find that material on our website, www.reasonablefaith.org. - RF Admin

@@drcraigvideos "Of course, being an immaterial being, God is not a spatial entity (though, the second person of the Trinity did take on human flesh" Unsubstantiated claim and a huge leap from your reply. Anyway, if you are proposing the idea of space less/timeless worlds, I don't think there's much else to say. I wouldn't count those as 'possible worlds', outside of the imaginary anyway. Sounds desperate.