I Can Imagine God, Therefore God Exists.

hello and welcome to my channel vice Rhino here today I'm looking at the ontological argument for God's existence hunted by inspiring philosophy so let's get to the question begging alvin plantinga's modal ontological argument is probably the best argument for the existence of God now not strong disagree I find the just look around you man argument to be infinitely more convincing than this one it uses the laws of modal logic and act similar to a mathematical proof except it's philosophy not mathematics so no matter how airtight you think you got it somebody somewhere will disagree I don't see anyone disagreeing with one plus one equals two but say anything philosophical and I can find you a whole group of people who will insist that you are wrong this is probably why a lot of people have a hard time understanding it and simply dismiss it I usually just dismiss it because of how ridiculous it is but when you said at the beginning that it's the best proof of God I just couldn't resist responding there are many great videos on the internet right now they give a great analysis of the ontological argument yet many people ignore these videos because they find them too confusing in this video I'm going to try to articulate the argument in an easy way to understand if you don't know what the ontological argument is yet then prepare to be blown away it's not that it's too confusing it's that it's completely and utterly silly because if you're a theist then it's important to understand this argument because when understood correctly it is impossible to refute just as impossible to refute as everything spouted by site N Burgin Kate that's that's foreshadowing because it's circular just like sigh and jokes are funnier when you explain them if you don't believe in a God then it would probably be a good idea to understand it so you don't appear foolish by misunderstanding it agreed so what is this amazing argument of which you speak to start here's how the modal ontological argument works premise 1 it is possible that God exists I disagree but I will let him get through the rest of the premises and I will present my objections while he makes his clarifications later premise 2 if it is possible that God exists then God exists in some possible worlds premise 3 if God exists in some possible worlds then God exists in all possible worlds premise for if God exists in all possible world then God exists in the actual world and premise 5 if God exists in the actual world then God exists now if you're like me when you first heard this you're probably asking wait that doesn't make any sense the logic of some of those premises doesn't add up yeah I'll say I agree with that statement 100% that's ok because we're going to look at it closer so you can understand it first you should understand that when philosophers say a possible world they mean a hypothetical situation it is generally a way for philosophers to test an idea to see if it's logical by asking could it exist in a possible world like ours fair enough it does seem to be a good philosophical tool however the one thing people seem to misunderstand the most in the argument is how God is defined yeah but no matter how you define God the logic still doesn't add up again we'll come back to this later some atheists say we're just imagining God into existence like this clever bunch no so here's my proof video recording this and I actually wrote this passage so let's define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn and exists by the above definition such a being must exist therefore a unicorn exists okay so that's the ontological large it's very hard to believe that there are people that use that but there are the facts of the ideas they're that so I can believe that I'm grant oka nodded apparently no not quite this gets to the crux of the matter just believing that you are green and polka-dotted does not fit in this argument in order for it to work in this argument you have to believe that you must be green and polka-dotted so you have to define yourself as green and polka-dotted in a way that existence requires you to be green and polka-dotted yes apparently so okay ladies and gentlemen I am green with purple polka dots and since I have stated that therefore it must be true as you can imagine it yeah okay here's the problem they are falling into the typical error of misunderstanding how God is to fund and because of their ignorance they are concluding that the argument doesn't work so we need to look at how God is actually defined and how it differs from how you would define a unicorn well I think that his unicorn was properly defined since he included the caveat that it must exist in his statement now there are three ways to define a being or an entity in the ontological argument an entity can either be impossible which means it exists in no possible worlds an example would be a square circle an entity can be contingent which means it exists in some talks of the world like a unicorn a unicorn could exist in some possible world but not in others last and entity can be necessary which means it has to exist in all possible worlds now what do we mean when we say something necessarily has to exist in all possible worlds good question but more to the point how do you show that something necessarily exists in all possible worlds well examples of necessary entities are numbers absolute truths and shape definitions for example take the number two no one created it it just exists necessarily it can't not exist take a shape definition for another example such as a square must have four sides a square cannot exist with only three sides because that would be logically incoherent in any possible world I agree with the numbers but are you saying that it's impossible to imagine a world that is like ours for the most part but nothing in that world has four equal sides yes I'm nitpicking but I don't think a square is a necessary item in fact if you want to get super nitpicky it's possible that squares don't even exist in our world if you measure precisely enough all four edges will be slightly different lengths if only by microscopic amounts possibly even getting down to how many atoms is off by so quadrangles yes squares not necessarily so a necessary entity is something that cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world therefore necessarily it has to exist in all possible worlds and such things are purely definitional anything that is more than just its own definition is not a necessary item so when we talk of God in this argument we are saying that if he exists he would have to be in necessary entity because God is defined as a maximally great being and why does a maximally great being have to exist what is necessary about a maximally great being in a maximally great being is defined as a being that possesses all qualities that are better to have which we define as great making properties okay but that is just one huge question begging fallacy to beg the question is to assume the conclusion of the argument while making the argument you are assuming that because you can think of being has necessity as a property a being must therefore exists with necessity as a property but what you have demonstrated about the property of necessity is that it is only possessed by things that are purely definitional by the logic of this argument you could literally demonstrate any fantasy creature to exist simply by a certain that it possesses the quality of necessity that is why the Unicorn example holds up you can't just assert that something is necessary you must demonstrate it I accept that the number two is necessary because any world with things in it there will be more than one thing and one of the number groupings will always be what I understand to be - even if different languages used to describe it I do not accept that God is necessary this is not an airtight argument against the God of the Bible though as if you actually read the Bible it is made very clear several times that Yahweh is not omniscient omnipotent or omni-benevolent other examples are love wisdom and power a maximally great being would also have to have these properties to their maximal extent except that the problem of evil demonstrates that a being with all three of those properties cannot possibly exist in our world quick rehash of the problem of evil a being who knows every way in which evil could come into existence omniscience and who is able to prevent that evil omnipotence and who wants to prevent that evil absolute benevolence would prevent that evil but evil exists therefore no omniscient omnipotent and omni-benevolent being exists he would also possess no qualities that are bad to have such as imperfection or corruption I know that we haven't really touched on proving which God might be the one who exists from this but if you're talking about the God of the Bible then both of those are demonstrably wrong these are defined as lesser making properties but most of all he would have to possess the great making property of necessity because being necessary is a property they would be better to have so because it's a property that is better to have and I can imagine something having it that thing must then exist yeah that's that's clearly not question begging or circular at all now looking back at the terms we defined earlier if God was contingent he would have been actually great because he would only exist in some world agreed but why did you skip over impossible I think that one fits him pretty well I mean either he is impossible or necessary in philosophical terms and you have not yet demonstrated that he is not impossible so why are we ruling that out keep in mind I'm speaking philosophically scientifically speaking I would concede that yes there is technically a possibility of but only in the same sense that any other mythological figure is also possible it's possible that the Wizarding World of Harry Potter exists and they hide it extremely well for muggles like me but philosophically speaking the Harry Potter world is impossible in that it exists in no possible worlds when you consider the philosophical definition of a possible world to be an imaginary world that is similar to ours men philosophy can be tiring it would be less than great than if she existed in all worlds now the idea of God being necessary is consistent with Scripture Colossians 1:16 says for by him all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether Thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created through him and for him okay if you're going to use scripture then so am I remember back when you said he would also possess no qualities that are bad to have such as imperfection or corruption well here's some imperfection for you the Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth and his heart was deeply troubled I regret that I have made Saul King because he has turned away from me how would an omniscient and omnipotent being have regrets he knew what he would regret and have the ability to make sure it didn't happen so did he make it so he would regret on purpose then it's not really regret and therefore the Bible is inaccurate so when skeptics try to debunk this argument by going through the premise with a unicorn in place of God they are trying to define God in the same way you would define a contingent being he defined a unicorn as something that must exist as in it is a necessary being so using the ontological argument necessary unicorns do exist as does the Flying Spaghetti Monster and anything else that you can think of as having the trait of necessity whereas when we use God in the ontological argument we are saying God is more than just contingent he is maximally great in anything maximally great must be a necessary entity but you haven't demonstrated that God is in fact maximally great and I have demonstrated using your reference book that God is not in fact maximally great so even if a maximally great being exists it is not the God of the Bible or it would it be maximally great so understanding how God is defined on the argument let's go through the premises again premise 1 it is possible that God a maximally great and necessary being exists please demonstrate the possibility being able to imagine it doesn't count premise 1 is an assumed conclusion so the whole argument is flawed premise 2 if it is possible that a maximally great being exists then a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds premise 3 if a maximally great being exists in some possible world then a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds remember if a maximally great being exists then he has to be in necessary entities and if a maximally great being does not exist then all of this goes out the window you still have not demonstrated premise 1 because a contingent being cannot be maximally great premise four if a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds then a maximally great being exists in the actual world nope just because you can imagine something as having the property of necessity does not mean that it actually does have that property in reality so even if premise 1 wasn't based entirely on a logical fallacy premise four fails because imagination does not make reality because the actual world is Canada is one of the possible worlds premise 5 if a maximally great being exists in the actual world then a maximally great being exists and the conclusion is a maximally great being negative a conclusion that was assumed in premises 1 and 4 without ever once being demonstrated so does it feel convincing well not really glad we can agree on something but when it boils down it's not a matter of how you feel what matters is what is logically coherent and since this argument is not logically coherent it can then be dismissed thanks so hopefully now that you know how God is defined in the argument you can understand how the ontological argument works are there objections to the argument yes but only in premise 1 well an premise 4 but even if the only objection was premise 1 I feel kind of like you know if your whole argument is dependent on a flawed premise it's probably not a sound argument since the other premises just follow modal logic than our own controversial the only way for skeptics to debunk this argument is to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist not really this is where the burden of proof comes in until you demonstrate that it's actually possible it can be assumed that it's not at least in this very narrow thought experiment the most common way this is tried is with the omnipotence paradox it is most commonly presented like this can God create a stone so heavy that even he can't move if God cannot create the stone then he is not all-powerful but of God can create the stone and can't move it then he is still not all-powerful therefore the idea of God is impossible yeah sounds good omnipotence by itself does not make any sense for that very reason now pair it with omniscient and omni-benevolent and you have the Holy Trinity of however this attempt is debunked in the question itself as a logical absurdity asking can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy even he can't move implies that omnipotence is defined it's able to do the logically impossible well I mean it kind of follows that if you have the property of omnipotence which means you have the power to do absolutely anything then yeah that would include the power to do something that is logically impossible I mean I thought you guys believe that God created logic so it stands to reason that he could have created it differently or altered it to make what is currently logically impossible possible which is not consistent with the definition of omnipotence no one who believes in omnipotent God please God can do the logically impossible how the is it almighty power if it isn't the power to do everything I mean that's the one definition of omnipotent is having unlimited power and able to do anything the Bible has verses it stated it's impossible for God to do certain things yes it does and as I pointed out earlier the Bible is an excellent source for demonstrating that the biblical God cannot possibly have all the attributes that modern Christians believe he has glad we can agree on that also if God cannot be tempted with evil does that mean that Jesus isn't God since he was tempted with evil in the desert also you left out the second part of that verse which states that God does not tempt anyone Genesis 22:1 says that God did tempt Abraham hmm asking the question is like asking can an omnipotent being create a square was three sides if he is truly omnipotent than yes it may involve altering all of history to swap the definition of square and triangle but he can do it if he's omnipotent or cannot nip it at being tell you the shape of purple or cannot nip it in being code in 11 it's just gibberish it is gibberish but it's also possible for an omnipotent being also I would like to point out that those aren't logical impossibility those are definitional impossibility there is a huge difference a logical impossibility would be more like that can he create a rock that's so heavy that even he can't lift it that's a logical thing none of those items are dependent on the definition the definitional ones are the ones like a square circle like a square is defined as something with four equal sides so by definition there cannot be a square circle that's not a logical thing that's a definitional thing all these questions are logically incoherent and cannot exist in any possible world so you could not expect them to be answered and again those are definitionally impossible because we define purple as a color and not a shape you cannot tell me the shape of purple but omnipotence is defined as having the power to do anything so logically impossible things should be possible for unlimited being now you might be asking well why can't God do the logically impossible probably because if he could then he would be self refuting but since you don't need to go nearly as far as logical impossibility is to show God to be self refuting this ultimately doesn't even matter one way or the other he is all-powerful so we should be able to do anything well you need to understand that logic derives from order without order nothing makes sense including existence and all of these were created by God right so why can't he have done it differently so you cannot use logical absurdities to disprove the existence of God because if logical absurdities were in a world along with God then essentially nothing in that world could actually exist that's an excellent point in that case the ontological argument boils down to the world exists therefore God does not well done so once again you cannot use logical absurdities to disprove the existence of God as long as you don't claim that God is omnipotent if you want him to be omnipotent then he has to be able to commit logical absurdities by definition that's one of those definitional things again by definition an omnipotent being can do anything that includes logical absurdities especially in modal logic if one side uses logic to prove the existence of God the other side cannot step outside of logic to disprove God in which case you don't have to use logical absurdities you can just point out that the properties of omnipotent omniscient and omni-benevolent are themselves logically absurd that would be like a football game where one team gets to use machete this is why the omnipotence paradox is not accepted in academia as a valid argument well I've never really seen anyone rely on it too heavily anyways it's more just poking fun anyways at this point he just directs you to another video of his that supposedly covers the other objections that I brought up but I would have thought that those being the better objections would have been worth at least touching on in the video that claims the ontological argument to be the best argument in favor of God guess not though feel free to support me on patreon and follow me on Twitter see you next time [Music]

Channel: Viced Rhino

Views: 90,569

Rating: 4.9096346 out of 5

Keywords: viced rhino, evolution, science, religion, creationism, pseudoscience, god, jesus, atheism, skeptic, inspiring philosophy, philosophy, ontological argument, anselm, ontological, ontology

Id: s38VJsl7uTc

Length: 20min 49sec (1249 seconds)

Published: Fri Jul 28 2017