Logical Proof of God's Existence

Support the channel by joining The Reinforcements: brianholdsworth.ca
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
Spanish translations by Vélez Translations, www.veleztransl...
A few weeks ago, I made a video that I titled “Undeniable Proof of God’s Existence.” The point of the video was to illustrate how inconsistent and illogical it is for people to expect undeniable proof before they will honestly explore the possibility of God’s existence.
And, unfortunately, a large portion of viewers of that video felt cheated by the title, apparently, anticipating that I had promised to offer undeniable proof rather than talk about this unreasonable standard - which essentially proves the point of the video.
The thesis of the video was left unanswered by these critics, some of whom made video responses of their own. So, I thought I’d do a follow up to that video here in which I will illustrate that thesis in, what I hope will be a more convincing way, as well as offer an actual proof in the process.
[intro]
Before I present the proof in question, I want to provide a little context as well as an explanation for how I’m going to present it and why.
The first thing I’ll say is that it isn’t well known. I only learned about it relatively recently in spite of the fact that I’ve been reading about various arguments and proofs for God’s existence for as long as I’ve been a theist and Christian - which is over 15 years now.
And whenever I’ve mentioned it to other, well-read, and well-educated theists, I’ve yet to find someone who is familiar with it.
And that’s revealing. There aren’t many commentaries you can read about this proof and there are even fewer people who understand it well enough to discuss it in any meaningful way.
The fact that it is less conspicuous than more popular proofs like the Kalam Cosmological argument or St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 ways isn’t because of some deficiency in the argument, but rather because I don’t think many people are up to the task of wrestling with it.
The point here being that it is so sophisticated, that there are only a select few who can make heads or tails of it. What that means is, it may very well represent the limits of what human thought can produce on the question of God’s existence.
There are critiques of the proof, but even they appear to lack the kind of confidence you usually find in an explicit refutation. They appear to be more questioning its implications and axioms than anything else.
And yes, it does rely on axioms which seems to be the source of any of the complaints I’ve read about it, but if your only complaint is that the axioms can’t be proven, then you run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in order to avoid accepting the God’s existence.
Because the fundamental laws of logic are axioms which cannot be proven, not the least of which is the assumption that the universe is intelligible such that our reason can be meaningfully applied to.
For example, in many of the responses to my previous video, people said that anything that exists should be empirically demonstrable and since nobody has managed to this in the case of God, or so it’s claimed, then there is no proof of God’s existence.
But the claim that the only kind of valid knowledge is empirical knowledge, is not itself, proven empirically which either makes it an axiom adopted on faith, which atheists like Bertrand Russel admitted, or it’s self refuting.
The other thing I should mention, because this may seem curious, but I have a good reason which reinforces the point of this video, is that I’m not going to tell you who came up with this proof except to say that this person is acknowledged by anyone familiar with them, to be one of the greatest minds ever - full stop.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

I was tempted to close comments on this video, even though I've never done that before, so that nobody gives away the origin of the argument, but I've decided not to. I'll leave it up to you to be honest with yourself. If you have to go look it up in order to find supposed refutations of it, then you've conceded that you're not looking for something to be proven to you. You're looking to win an argument, even if that means getting someone else to do the heavy lifting. Like I said in the video, that's not an exercise in reason, on your part, but on faith in someone else's reason to tell you what to think about something that exceeds your reason.

[@blusheep2]

I'm going to have to refer to others to understand all that math but from what I can make of it after a single pass over, it appears to be another form of the ontological argument.

[@charmendro]

Ima try and make sense of it and ask maybe some math-y friends or prof at my university if I can but I usually just wanna know the original creator in order to make sense of it lmao

[@leary4]

If u haven't seen this lecture ur definitely thinking along the same lines. U would be hard pressed to find anyone who suffered more for his science than Godel. He is very definitely highly thought of- by all the best minds too. I'm just not sure it is for anyone other than Godel and a very select few anything more than a thought problem. I mean it's not a matter of this thing being above the head of the average bear it really is in the stratosphere. Anyway, take a look at this vid it will be the easyest hour u ever spent on grey matter stuff (who knew mathamaticians/physicsts were so fun) (The limits of understanding) kzbin.info/www/bejne/epe8XneIqKprbNU

[@oliver6354]

Ahh, one of gödel’s ontological arguments. Yea, they’re cool. No, they aren’t solid. The reason they weren’t published has a lot to do with the things he posits in the argument (I imagine, at least). What is essence? What is a “positive property.” These terms, among others, aren’t super strong. I don’t think there’s a strong proof for God’s existence, but I think there’s just as good a proof for god’s nonexistence. “It’s been confirmed confidently that it’s valid logic.” That is a trick phrase. It’s probably valid, but definitely not completely sound. You got any vids on job/ Ecclesiastes?

[@dannybaseball2444]

Impossibly over my head, but I'll play. Quick question. What does "possibly exemplified" mean in Theorem 1? I can make sense of necessarily, but what does possibly exemplified mean in this context?

[@zacbrewer4368]

Your first mistake was assuming I understand even basic mathematical formulas.

[@swamivardana9911]

I do understand. Doesn't mean a thing.

[@EinsteinKnowedIt]

Zac it is Jesus speaking. Look at his cool 🎸 guitars. Look at the beard. The hair. That's Jesus right there. I'm just wondering why he decided to do a KZbin video thats all.

[@EinsteinKnowedIt]

@Aqua Fyre My religion doesn't believe in that sort of thing?

[@jimpeschke3435]

You don't need to understand any mathematics at all to realize that his argument is complete nonsense. Basic logic tells us that a finite being cannot prove or disprove the existence of an infinite being. No amount of mental or mathematical gymnastics can change this. There are pre-teens who understand this; it takes an "educated" person to arrogantly and falsely think they can prove that God exists.

[@maloxi1472]

@@jimpeschke3435 Which is exactly was he says in the video. Maybe you should've watched it first

[@matthewmorris9532]

"The axioms can't be proven". Yes, that's why they're called axioms.

[@lecturenotes7154]

More properly, "Axioms need are taken to be true within the context of the broader truth or theorem." It is perhaps a subtle distinction, but nevertheless, an important one.

[@davidmarsh3104]

@x Florio I think you have misunderstood what is meant by "proof" and "axiom" within mathematics and formal logic. Their meanings are different in that context than you might use them colloquially. The standards of proof within mathematics are incredibly high. So high in fact, that most things that are taken to have been proven in other fields, do not meet the rigorous standards of mathematics. Similarly, axioms are not arbitrary, but are foundational. In fact, you can think of them almost as definitions. For example. Euclid's first geometric axiom is that a point is specific location in n-space. It has position, but no size and no shape. This is an axiom and is far from arbitrary.

[@davidmarsh3104]

@x Florio This is incorrect. Axioms are the most basic foundational statements of any proof and are, by definition, self-evident. Otherwise, they would be merely arbitrary statements. The self-evidence gets to your "justificatory force" statement. Consult any intro book on formal logic for more details. I use Peter Smith's "An Introduction to Formal Logic" in the course I teach.

[@davidmarsh3104]

@x Florio I'd respond in more detail, but then I'd have to start charging tuition. Haha. I think this conversation has served it's purpose. Have a great day and all the best to you.

[@kaleb749]

No, that’s not. An axiom is, by definition, a statement that is self evident or accepted. If I say as an axiom that “the sky is green”, then I have a faulty axiom. Axioms are truths we agree upon, which are used as the rules for a rational pathway to prove something we might not already have agreed upon. The criticism of this theory’s axioms then isn’t baseless; it means that the argument is using faulty or not agreed premises. The axioms used in this argument, then, are either intentionally false to get the desired conclusion, or are intentionally made for a Christian audience, which already agrees and thus doesn’t need to be persuaded. If you understand the argument, and you have an atheistic perspective, this will become instantly obvious to you. One of the axioms (axiom 5) is only true if you already assume God is true, which defeats the point of using outside logic to prove His existence.

[@darkmagician8179]

‘I know there is an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being… I also know what this being wants… but if you question my knowing, you’re automatically contradicting yourself, because you cannot understand this being. You’re just being silly and you should stop asking for proof my claims’ 🙄😒

[@AngelineProductions]

“A God you understood would be less than yourself.” -Flannery O'Connor

[@juilianbautista4067]

Not really, especially when God allowed Himself to be understood through His own self-revelation to humans in history. Is God 100% comprehensible? No. But did the eternal, almighty, triune God reveal certain understandable things about Himself that are beyond dispute? Yes!

[@The50FirstState]

It is a case of both, and - God is transcendent and immanent.

[@jimpeschke3435]

"Flannery O'Connor is wrong" - Jim Peschke It is fallacious to believe that you cannot understand a superior mind.

[@williamswenson3970]

​@@jimpeschke3435 Can an orangutan at the San Diego zoo understand why non-furry bipeds are entering their enclosure and giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? Why would it be fallacious to believe that humans cannot fully understand God, when defined as an all powerful, all knowing, non-contingent being who dwells outside of space and time?

[@jimpeschke3435]

@@williamswenson3970 Non sequitur. A God can be whatever He wants, including a being completely understandable to humans. The orangutan metaphor doesn't hold either, since recognition of motive is not a "greater than/less than" phenomenon. I never cease to be amazed that those to whom theology seems most important are usually the ones who give it the least amount of logical thought. Atheists and agnostics seem to have a much better grasp of these concepts, probably because they are not blinded by a "I already know the answers" mindset.

[@grumpus3046]

My pastor, Fr. Pat once said to me when I demanded proof of God's existence, read the Bible, pray every day and when you come to a belief in Him and His Son Jesus, why...there's your proof. He was a good man and I miss him every day.

[@knightblossom8407]

best reply that man can give - God never fails those who seek Him!

[@knotpossible]

What about people who’ve done those things, believed in God, and then later came to see things differently, becoming unbelievers? Did they have the proof and deny it? Did they seek in the wrong manner? Did they pray too infrequently? What about people in other faiths who simply commit themselves to their religious teachings and practices and find their proof? Is that proof for their religion?

[@stephanemujomba5148]

The fact that you managed to convince yourself that Christianity is real did not actually prove whether or not it is real. It simply changed your own perception of it, using a deeply biased book that would obviously wants you to believe in its unproven doctrines.

[@grumpus3046]

@Rachel Goldberg To whom are you ferring with your comment, ma'am?

[@Anonymous-zd1ow]

Wtf kinda proof is that?

[@garybustamante3412]

I'm just like Abraham, i don't understand everything about God, i just believe, trust, and have faith in Him, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

[@chokin78]

I don't think old Abe had the slightest idea who Jesus was...

[@j.sethfrazer]

@@chokin78 Or even the Holy Spirit, LoL. I was dialoguing with a Fundamentalist the other day and he was arguing that the reason Cain burned fruit of the ground was because, unlike Abel who burned the blood of the lamb, Cain had a works salvation that God did not regard. Therefore do not respect any of the false religions, since they are going in the way of Cain. I asked if God commanded Cain to burn the lamb and they were like, “No, but they knew about Christ” 😅🤦🏻‍♂️

[@altruistboy2759]

😂😂😂😂

[@DaGubah501]

@@chokin78 Bwahahaha amen 🙏 that was foolish comment. Ugh, god, what 😮 a complicated topic.

[@onward8231]

@@chokin78 John 8 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

[@deerwolfa]

I am very happy to see that someone else actually researched this. When I was an atheist I was in a very deep "scientistism" mindset but when I went down the mathematics and logic route I learned of this proof. It was critical to my return to christianity. Thank you for doing a video on this!

[@JohnAlbertRigali]

I’ve been a math junkie for more than four decades. I was also an atheist steeped in scientism when I was young. I wish that I had encountered this proof then; I wasn’t even aware of it until this video.

[@AlDunbar]

@@JohnAlbertRigali so, now that you have been convinced by this logic (developed by a man who was not convinced by this logic), are you just a theist, or have you determined which religion is the only one that recognizes the true god? And, if so, what logic was used?

[@ribozyme2899]

Why Christianity though? The proof says nothing about any specific god. Heck, the proof is _exactly as valid_ if you replace "God" with "unicorn".

[@ribozyme2899]

@Based Jane-senist Try it. Replace "God-like" with "unicorn-like" and check whether the proof is logically consistent. You will find that it is so.

[@deerwolfa]

@@ribozyme2899 I mean that works if a unicorn is defined as an ever existing, omniscient, rational being, which rules out 99% of religions already.

[@letstrytouserealscienceoka3564]

The only thing that this, and every other argument, for the "existence" of a god does is prove that the believer believes. No argument can prove objective existence, that a thing is a part of objective reality, the reality that we all share.

[@adamheywood113]

I'm halfway through and you're talking about, essentially, if I (the viewer) can refute the argument, then I should do it myself, and that I shouldn't be asking for proof that's beyond my ability to understand, which I think is fair enough. I will point out that I can't know if the proof is beyond my comprehension until I encounter it; which means I've either already encountered it and didn't understand it, or I haven't encountered it. But yes, I do assume that I'm capable of grasping the proof, because other people believe, so presumably they can grasp it too, right? It may be that I don't understand at first glance but I do assume I'm capable of wrapping my head around it eventually, because if somebody else could, why not me? Or are you just admitting that you believe something you can barely understand? You can't have it both ways. You either believe based on sound reason, or you believe on faith which means you didn't investigate yourself, you just believed somebody else. And now that I've seen the proof, I would ask, do _you_ understand it? Is this the reason for your belief? If it is, but others struggle to understand, then why not explain? If it's not, then how do you know it's proof? Supposing I don't understand it, and therefore cannot refute it, does that make it any more valid? It just means that I'm out of my depth, which is something that I would have to accept in the interests of intellectual honesty but has nothing to do with whether the proof is valid. Similarly, Usain Bolt smashed world records for sprinting. The fact that I can't run as fast as Bolt doesn't mean his record-breaking sprints are invalid, nor does it mean the previous records should be upheld as current.

[@thesonnen447]

The formulator of this was a Titan and one of my favourite logicians. Had he lived in a time with deep influence/debate on Divine Simplicity, I think he would've taken it to the next level by showing an example of it. One can only hope to reach the level of genius he had on a bad day.

[@rossdsouza]

One could say your comment was "Incomplete" without mentioning his name, could they? But yes He was a genius without equal even today

[@PenguinPat]

@@rossdsouza Thanks for that hint. Now I know whose proof it is!

[@rotorblade9508]

The logic is ok but it relies on the axioms a lot of them which can be false and I think there are false

[@Darksaga28]

@@rotorblade9508 You think they are false? OK, mr. nobody. thanks for your opinion.

[@coffeetalk924]

@@Darksaga28 Rotor is correct. Axioms can be false in the world of quantum physics. Logic breaks down. Do you understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple, or Retro-causation? Go look then up. Axioms are often solid in the world of Relativity, but not in the world of Quantum physics.

[@urbanbuddha65]

This "proof" can be used to prove the existence of anything, hence it is obviously ridiculous. For example you can use it to prove the existence of a perfect King Kong. It fails in multiple places. The most obvious failure is that just because I can imagine something (a perfect dragon or a perfect goose that lays golden eggs) that does not mean that those things must exist. Also Axiom 2 is clearly wrong. We live in a dualistic universe: Up implies the existence of Down, otherwise Up is meaningless. Left implies the existence of Right otherwise Left is meaningless. Positive implies the existence of Negative, otherwise Positive is meaningless. So the statement in Axiom 2 is false, because it claims "that any property strictly implied by a positive property is positive", which we know is not true, because Positive also implies Negative. See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument and search for "criticisms". Of course, the fact that the claimed proof is not a proof says nothing about whether God exists or not; it just says that this failed proof can't answer the question of whether God exists.

[@st_a_x]

1.Watch video 2.video says to NOT do this one thing to maintain the relevancy of the video 3.DO the one thing to criticize video I like your style lol

[@pathfinder1273]

Theres one in every crowd who just has to be a know-it-all. Mr. urbanbuddha65 has determined that one of the greatest minds of history has come up with an argument that is "obviously ridiculous". Now I know the true definition of "hubris".

[@urbanbuddha65]

@@pathfinder1273 Now, instead of addressing the arguments that I made, you are using the well known false argument called "appeal to authority" in which you attempt to mock me by claiming that the person who made the argument is an authority, or in your words "one of the greatest minds of history". If there is something actually wrong with my arguments, then please point them out, because if I am wrong I would like to learn from that, but please don't expect anyone to accept a false rhetorical trick that was already well known and documented as false by the ancient Greeks.

[@urbanbuddha65]

@@st_a_x How is humanity served by not debunking something that is obviously false? Why should anyone cooperate in a request to maintain a lie?

[@pathfinder1273]

@@urbanbuddha65 Yeah, not really. You didnt make any real arguments, mostly a few hyperbolic comments. My reference to a great mind is in light of the fact that the author was trying to explore a topic of great complexity and importance, while your arguments remind one of the smart ass in high school who scoffed at everything the teachers said by positing extreme or isolated objections. Using such an approach is another form of logical fallacy aimed at making the other side look less competent. And since the video said nothing about the proof, your taking issue with what you think was said is kind of irrelevant. Nowhere did I see anything suggesting that just because you can imagine something that it must exist. You want to be taken seriously, act more serious. Youve also assumed that a proof necessarily establishes that something must be so, but that is a scientific impossibility. Any proof can only establish an increased possibility/probability. And if, as you claim, a positive property implies the existence of a negative property, that does not say that they are therefore one and the same or that one cant exist without the other. They are related but not codependent. Furthermore, it talks about related properties that are different, both positive or both negative. If you want to know the real weakness of the proof, it is in the fact that it relies on attributional logic and not on relational argument. God does not exist because he is all good, He exists because He is the Creator.

[@JustOneFletch]

Person with a math degree here. I've spent the last two hours studying this "proof" (the formal logic version presented first, not the English version which is vague and confusing with its terms, I suspect deliberately so.) I can assure you that it is total garbage. First we define the quality of having all positive properties in the universe as being "God-like." God-like-ness is itself a property (already treading into dangerous territory in terms of set theory). Then we say that if one property of something logically implies all its other properties, then that is that thing's "essence." It follows directly from this that god-like-ness is an "essence." Then we define necessary existence to mean that if something has an essence, then that essence implies that something with that property must exist. (Keep in mind, this is a definition, not an axiom or theorem, so nothing has been asserted yet--a weak and futile attempt to hide a circular argument.) We then declare as axiom that necessary existence (the defined version, not the real world or formal logic version) is a positive property. The proof is never given, but obviously the chain of logic is supposed to be, consider x such that x is God-like. God-like-ness is an essence of x, by definition. Also by definition, x has all positive properties, including the property of "Necessarily existing" (the defined version, not the real world version). Then by definition of "necessarily existing," God-like-ness being an essence of x implies that something must exist (real world version of existence this time) with the property of god-like-ness. Therefore it is necessary that something god-like exists (real world definition). The proof attempts to avoid a circular argument by adding a new defintion of "necessary existence" distinct from but still relying on the real world definition. It doesn't work, it's still circular just with extra steps to hide it. I could write hundreds of pages about all my objections to this proof. For example, even if we agree and say that something "god-like" exists, we haven't proven that any other positive properties exist. "Necessary existence" might be the only positive property possible. So in the end anything that exists could possibly fall under the definition of "God-like." You, me, the tree, the rock. For everything you want to claim about god, you now have to prove that it's a "positive property" consistent with the definitions and logic of this proof. Note that axiom 2 (in the formal logic version with the if and only if statement) specifically disallows god from having any non-positive qualities, since for every non-positive quality, not having it is axiomatically a positive quality. (Again, this is from the formal logic version that uses the if and only if, not axiom 1 from the English version that is much weaker.) Let's consider the property of "having allowed your own son to die when you could have easily saved him." You could argue that it was positive in that circumstance, but then you're going to have a hard time convincing me that that meets axiom 4 (positive properties are necessarily positive). Or maybe that's not a "property," a concept that, after all, is only introduced axiomatically. We can see that to defend this proof for the existence of a Specific god, then we either have to take on an impossible task of defining and classifying all the properties that god does or does not possess, or we have to hide behind the vagueness of the axioms, to the point where they become totally meaningless. That's IF the proof wasn't invalid to begin with, which it is.

[@evagelosgeronicolas4019]

Yes, I cannot see how he derives his Th. 4. Also the notion of positive property is not adequately defined. Is being a god of war a positive property? Is being a god of peace a positive property?

[@lukasbryant9881]

It was both the Father's and the Son's collective plan for the Son to die to reconcile humanity to Themselves. So why would the Father "save" the Son of his death when the Father planned to raise the Son from death after three days? Why would They "spare" the Son's death and leave all of humanity doomed when the plan was to save humanity in the first place? In order to truly argue against something, you have to know what you are arguing against and represent it properly. Otherwise it's just a straw man fallacy.

[@teaglass3750]

@@lukasbryant9881 Wanted to put in a thought to your post here but the first part isn't making sense. You said: "So why would the Father "save" the Son of his death when the Father planned to raise the Son from death after three days?" That sounds like this (I'm not trying to be insulting): Why did Beth eat the bread when she planned to make bread in the first place? The fact that Beth made bread points to someone eating it. So I don't understand your question. Can you re-phrase it some other way? By "They" do you mean the Trinity? What do you mean by "spare"? People were not doomed as such by Christ's death and resurrection. By Christ's death and resurrection, many people are saved and the way to God has been opened. How do you see Christ's death and resurrection? What do they mean to you? I ask to see where you are coming from.

[@evagelosgeronicolas4019]

​@@lukasbryant9881 Yes, we should, however, be very careful when we say that the Son died. The Son is the second Person of the Holy Trinity and the second Person of the Holy Trinity cannot die. What died is human nature of the incarnate Son. What did Jesus say to the RH thief? Today you will be with Me in Paradise. The second Person was going to be in Paradise also, because he was going to be everywhere: In the Throne with the Father and the Holy Spirit; in Paradise; in Hades along with the human soul, while the body was dead in the tomb. But the real issue of the video was the proof of the old ontological argument which you correctly do not call an ontological argument. For once you start using existential quantifiers, the meaning of the proof becomes epistemic and not ontological. When I say 'I exist' what I express is the immediate awareness of my lived experience. And this is not something that can be externalized as a property. If the French existentialists after the war make a valid point, this is it. It was a good reaction against the epistemic direction of philosophy that became dominant after Descartes. When I say: (there is an x such that) (x=I), i.e, in the epistemic way that Descartes approached existence, what I say is that I put in doubt and question the validity of the immediate awareness of my existence. I am after finding that x which is identical with me. Descartes' proof was that by doing that I already have found the object that I am looking for. However, the very formulation of existence in epistemic terms brought philosophy upside down. Now, if we look closer, what Descartes managed to prove was that the 'I' that does the searching move right now indeed must exist. But how does he know that my 'I' right now is identical with my 'I' a second ago. He cannot prove that. The epistemic 'I' is not identical with my existential ontological 'I' of which, by the way, I am sure about. In Hume, the Cartesian plague that has struck philosophy is even more obvious, because in Hume the point that I have just make is explicitely made. Hume epistemically concludes that he cannot be certain that he himself exists, although we are all sure that he was certain that he himself existed. Along the same lines Kant read and reinterpreted the old ontological argument. If it were to be legitimate, his legitimacy ought to be guaranteed by the new epistemic approach. God was a being of infinite perfections, but his existence was to be understood in the way we understand the epistemic quantifiers in logic. His existence was something for us to find, in the same way as we understand in science the expression "the exist a planet that disturbs the trajectory of Neptune", and our scientific task is to find that planet. As far as I know, Kant was the first to make clear and explicit the distinction between epistemic and ontological existence. This is very good, but he followed the modern tradition which recognized epistemic existence as the only legitimate one scientifically, which means that ontological existence is only of psychological value and has very little to do with truth. As I said above, the existentialists came back to stress the importance of the ontological existence. To make the point more clear, let's suppose that I go to ancient Athens and I am looking for Socrates. I have been given an adequate description of the man such that I am pretty sure that I will recognize him. The situation can be articulated as follows: (there exists x) such that (x=Socrates), where the name 'Socrates' here means the set of characteristics which are adequate for me to recognize Socrates. But this is not what Socrates means when he says 'I exist'. And this is not what Plato means when he says 'Socrates exists'. Socrates has an immediate awareness of his lived experience, which cannot be seriously compared with my adequate characteristics to recognize Socrates. Plato also has a direct acquaintance of Socrates life. Most of it can be lived but cannot be conceptualized, and if we were to ask about Socrates' essence, it would be more fair to look at his lived experience as closely as possible. The philosophical or biological definition of being human, and the list of my descriptive characteristics have very little to do with the essence of Socrates' life, which was a life in search of truth is a glorious city in a state of rapid demoralization and decay. That existence has nothing to do with existential quantifiers, and if that is true for Socrates, to a much higher degree is true of God. For a saint the existence of God is the mystical awareness of the presence of the Life of God in his heart. The saints live the life of God, and Kant's point that if I remove existence from the notion of God the notion does not changes is philosophical nonsense par excellence. If you remove existence from the notion of God you end up with a dead notion of God in your understanding and an empty nothing in your heart. This is the difference between St Anselm and Kant. Now, if we go back to the epistemic approach of necessary existence, we would have to me a distinction between 'necessary finding' and finding a 'necessarily existing object'. There is a huge difference between saying (it is necessary that I find) F(x); namely, necessity operator, followed by an existential quantifier and, (I am after finding) (F(x) which necessarily exists); namely, existential quantifier, followed by the operator of necessity. I think that you formally write down the first but you mean the second. If there is a valid proof along the lines that you present, it needs to be spelled out in more detail because a lot is involved here.

[@3joewj]

If your brain is the result of guideless Processes and a random clump of cells...why would you believe anything it says? As in your last post.

[@g07denslicer]

I don’t understand why you’d fault an atheist for looking up someone else’s refutation of the argument. You say it’s an exercise in faith in someone else’s reason. Sure, if you want to call it that. But there’s nothing wrong with it epistemically. If someone else _has_ done the heavy lifting in refuting the argument, great then I don’t have to do that heavy lifting. But if you’re so keen on atheists trying to refute the argument themselves, why aren’t you equally as keen on theists to try to come up with the argument themselves? After all, coming here to see someone else present an argument for God’s existence is an exercise in faith in someone else’s reason, is it not?

[@g07denslicer]

@Yódhgæ Shrifjå Sorry, I did not understand your comment.

[@ross8824]

I dont really understand how you can complain about people disappointed with your previous video about undeniable proof of god. You literally clickbaited that exact thing.

[@matthewmorris9532]

Brian: "I'm not going to say who came up with this argument" Me: "Please let this not be the Ontological argument" Brian: shows the argument Me: "Darn"

[@safidif]

You dont believe in it?

[@safidif]

He also has an incompleteness theorem which states that the any mathematical formula with two axioms will need something outside the formula to prove it. Can you prove numbers are infinite? No. Same way with the universe. You will need something outside the universe to explain it.

[@lucasdasilva23]

​@@safidif of course one can prove the infinitude of numbers It is one of the most basic properties of the structure of natural numbers, "one can always add 1 more".

[@safidif]

@@lucasdasilva23 um no. You cant prove it. You can only assume. You will never be able to prove you can always add one

[@anakides]

@@safidif The incompleteness theorem blew my mind when I heard about it.

[@stephanemujomba5148]

That argument you used when saying you’d have to be able to understand a claim to believe it, this can be easily taken advantage of. If someone says “I saw a unicorn at my house yesterday” and some one else says “Really? Is there any evidence, did you take a picture?” Then they reply “Well you just can’t understand it, it was there and I saw it” You can see where this is problematic when humans claim they’ve seen visions of god, and the argument you made enables that.

[@benjaminw.1471]

Agreed, he conflates a reasonable belief in scientific theories with faith in a god, which is a dangerous idea. A person can have a justified reasonable belief in a scientific theory that was developed through the scientific method and backed by evidence. To whatever extent that reasonable trust in the scientific process is "faith", it's far more reasonable than faith in a god that's unprovable or somehow beyond our comprehension.

[@benkrapf]

...because a person disagreeing with Brian necessarily hasn't read them? Their arguments aren't as convincing as you claim they are.

[@nachokoenig6279]

Based and Christpilled

[@Mateo-et3wl]

What does that mean?

[@oddguys178]

@@Mateo-et3wl it's meme, he's basically calling this video good

[@oggolbat7932]

indeed

[@Leon-zu1wp]

Based on what?

[@onvogmasaj]

@@Leon-zu1wp math

[@bujinkanatori]

Here you debunked the knowledge of God. "God is something we cannot fully understand" So you freely admit that you believe in something you think humans cannot understand, thus cannot really KNOW.

[@asianhippy]

It doesn't matter what you say. If there is a god, he would know what would be convincing to a non-believer. The trouble is that, if he does exists, he has chosen to remain hidden.

[@sky365dt8]

The argument could be made that Him appearing any more than He does would make any action we make meaningless. This quandary is only a problem if you believe the one high God would force people to love Him and not do everything He could do to let them choose for themselves whether to do so. Personally, I find God very present; if I didn’t want to love Him, I believe He would out of His great love, not be present. Remember the type of Being we are talking about; “our ways are not His ways” and we should be careful not to impose our own ideals or how we wish or think He should do things if we want to truly gain an even small understanding of who He is.

[@asianhippy]

@@sky365dt8 God, if he is real, could do something/anything to show that he exists. It would show to non-believers that he is real. It wouldn't compromise the choice to worship him or not. Personally speaking, I would not choose to worship him after having read the bible but I would believe him to be real. As for forcing people to worship him, we are told that if you don't worship him, you will be sent to hell forever. That, in my opinion, is forcing you to worship him, it is blackmail.

[@seekjesuschrist713]

@@asianhippy He has shown many things to many non believers that have changed them into believers such as myself.

[@asianhippy]

@Seek Jesus Christ Why can he not show his existence to all non-believers. If I had all power he is supposed to have, I do not think it would be a difficult thing to do. Why does he allow people to believe that there other god/s, when he is supposed to be the only god?

[@seekjesuschrist713]

@@asianhippy Bible explains all your questions in the first chapter of Romans

[@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot]

The Kalam was a dud from the outset and Bill Craig's attempts to resurrect it from the dead is universally considered a flop as well. The premises just don't hold up to even cursory review as an argument for the existence of a god.

[@lucianhodoboc1611]

A God Who desires to have a personal relationship with the beings He created should endow those beings with an ability to perceive His existence in a comprehensible manner. Stating that "we shouldn't demand to understand God because He's too complex and we're too stupid" would work in a deistic worldview in which God doesn't interact with the beings He created and doesn't punish them with eternal damnation for their inability to believe in His existence, an existence which they were not endowed with an ability to perceive in a way that would make them believe in.

[@fionncaomanac339]

It's impossible to see things that exist outside of your conscience existence. God might be like air, something so there you cannot see it like air.

[@hellothere6728]

@@brokenmummy232 how do you know you have picked the right god

[@hellothere6728]

@@brokenmummy232 how did you improve why doesn’t god just exist among us then no one will not believe in him I know the Bible says no one can see him and live but he could have just stopped that verse from being written Jesus: knock knock let me in Me: what do you need? Jesus: I want to save you Me: from what? Jesus: from what I’ll do to you if you don’t let me in!

[@lucianhodoboc1611]

@@brokenmummy232, you misunderstood me. I am not an atheist. I know that God exists. I have read The Bible and experienced supernatural signs from Him many times. I am certain of His existence, and I have experienced the change of heart you spoke of too. It didn't last long because I fell back into sin, and then I got hit with chronic pain, which led me to currently be intellectually aware of His existence, but emotionally antagonistic to the way He runs things. Also, I don't consider that the intellectual inferiority of a being should be an argument to deny its right to use an ability it was endowed with, namely reason. If it uses it faulty, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent Being would make the inferior being understand the errors of its arguments, not shame it and threaten it with punishment.

[@ulthea]

@@brokenmummy232 funny, life experience did the same thing for me - no God required. Perhaps you should give yourself more credit?

[@clarkkent3730]

*"The carnal intellect is enmity against God; it is not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can it be"...Romans chapter 8:7*

[@genome616]

You cannot prove the bible by quoting the bible, it is a logical fallacy thus your post is void and means nothing. I challenge you to prove your God without the bible!

[@clarkkent3730]

@@genome616 you actually just confirmed and proved the scripture i just quoted by your comment and reply!

[@clarkkent3730]

@@genome616 "The only argument against the Bible is an unholy life. When someone argues against the Word of God, follow him home and see if you cant discover the reason of his hatred and enmity; It always lies in some sort of secret sins"...C H Spurgeon

[@clarkkent3730]

@@genome616 can you prove science without looking at the science? can you prove science without using and testing the science?

[@clarkkent3730]

@@genome616 Can you get a building without a builder? Can you get a painting without a painter?........Neither can you get a creation without a creator! Scientists have proven that DNA is coded: how do you get code without a coder? How do we get design, as we see within the human body, without a designer? How do we have universal laws without a lawgiver? Scientists have proven that in just one strand of our DNA molecule there are millions of bits of information: how do you get information without an informer? Where does the conscience come from? This is why we feel guilt whenever we say or do things we know intuitively that are morally wrong?

[@shadowshedinja6124]

Brian Holdsworth: if you have to look up the refutations, you've conceded that someone else is doing the heavy lifting. Also Brian: here's a proof someone famous wrote over 50 years ago. The TLDR of the proof is that a god-like being would have all positive properties by definition, and that existence is a positive property, therefore a god-like being exists (doesn't specify which one). While often praised as being logically consistent, it relies on axioms and loose definitions that are not agreed upon. If any of those axioms or definitions are false, then a conclusion cannot be reached.

[@benkrapf]

The Jesuit professor teaching my theology class at Georgetown shut a strident Christian student down using your critique. It was satisfying to watch.

[@FarfourAliDawah]

"I like your funny words magic man"

[@aspiknf]

You mean Magic Mike *Magic Mike then starts stripping*

[@philcawser]

Another blurring of definitions to get the desired result. These are complex maths concepts even for professionals, and should not be misused to delude the innocent viewer.

[@lobstered_blue-lobster]

I disagree actually, he did promote the argument really well and in a mostly ethical way because yes most of us aren't Mathematicians or don't understand Mathematics in a professional way so to dismiss the argument would be dishonest or let anyone else interpret and refute/reinforce it for you than you are being dishonest as you are letting someone else do your intellectual heavy work. But he was being arrogant about it acting like this argument is undefeatable and all, he probably overstated the argument but...I don't underatand the argument myself so it would be dishonest to say he overstated it, I mean it is from Kurt Gödel, a well reputable Mathematician, Logician (considered one of the greatest Logicians infact) and Philosopher ofcourse so it must be really good.

[@benkrapf]

So, Brian, Newton believed in alchemy. One of the greatest minds in history. Also a Christian. So, you believe that alchemy is real and that nontrinitarian arianism is the way to go. Congrats!

[@whatsinaname691]

I like how everyone who knew what it was saw it coming a mile away, and almost all of us think that there are better versions…

[@helviov]

A potential weakness in this proof: even if it successfully proves existence, it says nothing about uniqueness. In mathematics, existence and uniqueness are independent statements that must be proven separately, and the latter is often harder than the former. But I don’t need mathematics to feel God’s presence. :) Thank you for your videos and God bless!

[@williamcrawford7621]

Very interesting. I suppose that if this proof is true, that basically forces everyone to either be a monotheist or a polytheist

[@swamivardana9911]

Do you accept that Bible and Koran are incomprehensible and thus meaning less.

[@FarfourAliDawah]

@@swamivardana9911 Nope because that is incorrect

[@swamivardana9911]

@@FarfourAliDawahIf you understand "GOD'S BOOK" then why is God incomprehensible.

[@gaiusoctavius5935]

@@swamivardana9911 Understanding God's book doesn't equal understanding God.

[@olgamarinho]

When I was an atheist I met two logic professors (a man and a woman) at University who I esteemed as the smartest people I have ever known personally. Huge was my shock when I found out that BOTH of them were devout catholics. Since then I stopped being the type of atheist that deems religious people as fools, and gradually this contributed to my conversion.

[@goodman4093]

Thank God for you. Imagine an atheist calling Newton a fool! I don't argue with atheist anymore.

[@aspiknf]

Well there were people with great scientific minds who thought God exists...like Max Planck, Werner Karl Heisenberg (the physicist), Arno Allan Penzias, Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton. But that does not mean God exists.

[@JackgarPrime]

You tell people not to look up refutations, and if they can't formulate the refutations for themselves, then they concede. And yet...you did not create this argument, either. You had to look it up, read about it, read about the man who came up with it, and then at the end just posted a pair of images that show the mathematical proof while spending no time explaining it. I would say you would be the one preemptively conceding first, because either you do not understand it well enough to explain it, or you do not understand it at all, and just know it had a particular reputation and thought you could use it to prove a point. The main actual content of this video seems to actually hinge on "This very clever person came up with this, and if you're not as clever as him to create a refutation on the spot, then you have to acquiesce to it" as your main point. Also, the axioms in ontological arguments in general are always just....awful and don't actually logically follow to the conclusion you're aiming for.

[@Patristica]

I'm a traditional Latin Catholic, a doctoral student of early Patristic theology and I understand the argument. I did not Google any critiques. I am not particularly confident in my own ability to reason. I have a horse in this race, I would love good arguments for the existence of God. This argument will be dismantled by our atheist brothers and sisters. It's not good to market these things as irrefutable, you'll only seem more 'silly' when a good counter arrives.

[@danwheeler5530]

I didn't catch where he marketed the argument as irrefutable. In fact I specifically remember him saying that the logic is sound but the axioms can be questioned. If you understand where he's coming from, his point is not to offer irrefutable proof of the existence of God but to make people think for themselves and hopefully realize that all reason relies on unprovable axioms. He's mainly going after the atheist that was taught at some point that smart people don't believe in things that can't be proven empirically and abandoned their inquiry there.

[@rotorblade9508]

@@danwheeler5530 by saying “‘mathematical proof for God’s existence”

[@danwheeler5530]

@@rotorblade9508 From Wikipedia: "A mathematical proof is an inferential argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion." This is indeed what is presented here.

[@natea8255]

That makes no sense watch the video again cuz your clearly weren’t listening

[@Patristica]

@@natea8255 Hi Nate, can you specify exactly what I've missed? I'm not precious about being wrong, just interested.

[@nmkloster]

This is 7+ minutes of preempting "You won't understand this so better just accept my proposition". The argument structure is at 7:40 and in words at 7:45. It basically defines by axioms a thing G that has a set of things (x) and we can just go ahead and assume that the axioms are good AND that G(x) is Brian's god.

[@davidecusinato8274]

​@@UncleShamus the field is called logic, look up "Gödel's ontological proof" (this paper is somewhat known, is from the 1940s and has been criticized/disproven, so make what you want out of it). You can look up others logicians from the same era, like Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) and Russell (Principia Mathematica), btw logic spans across a lot of subjects. There is a TON of literature on the subject but remember that logic is math and, just like math, doesn't care about principle of authority.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@UncleShamus I think the specific notation is called "predicate logic". As with any branch of logic, it cannot be any more truthful or revealing than the assumptions or axioms that go into the logic.

[@juanandrealvarezmeza6179]

I admit I don’t completely understand this argument, but from what I understood I feel fairly confident in saying it didn’t imply God’s sentience, or him creating the universe or him being powerful, or him existing as a real being rather than existing as just an idea. It doesn’t say anything about what being God-like means, other than it being consistent. This means that you could exchange God-like with any other word, or letter, or symbol.

[@CheddarBayBaby]

Bingo

[@jonathanstensberg]

The definition of God-like is questionable, but you're asking the proof to prove too much. The proof attempts to show that such a thing with the essense of God necessarily exists. It does not attempt to show, for instance, that such a thing with the essense of God necessarily does what God has been proported to have done according to some religion; showing such a thing takes work beyond what is demonstrated in the proof. Demonstrating that such a thing with the essence of God is all-powerful, to take another example, is an entirely different exercise than demonstrating that such a thing with the essence of God exists; they are simply different questions. Most proofs for the existence of God actually prove that some specific property must necessarily exist. They then demonstrate from that necessarily existing property that other properties must necessarily exist--and exist within the same entity. What results (if the demonstrations succeed, obviously) is a necessarily existing entity with a bunch of necessary properties: a god of some sort, or whatever you want to call it. It is an even further exercise to then contend that the necessarily existing god with these necessary properties lines up with the deity described by a given religion.

[@ribozyme2899]

In fact, I switched "God-like" with "unicorn-like", and proved to my little sister that unicorns exist somewhere.

[@level3143]

Mathematician here. Investigating the warrant for axioms of a "proof" is absolutely critical to determining soundness. With false axioms it is simple to prove anything. Even things we know are false. For example: x = y [multiply by x] x^2 = xy [subtract y^2) x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2 [factor] (x+y) * (x-y) = y * (x - y) [divide by (x-y)] (x+y) = y [sub in x for y since they are equal via step 1] x + x = x [simplify] 2x = x [divide by x] 2 = 1 QED

[@anngladstone9130]

I'm sorry, Brian, but I find it disingenuous that you are intentionally discouraging your viewers from looking up this theory to understand the points and counter-points. This is not an exercise in reason, but a push for us to believe your word that this really smart guy came up with a valid proof of God.

[@villentretenmerthjackdaw4205]

I knew who it was gonna be when you mentioned one of the greatest minds and logicians of all time. I've always struggled to come to understand it. This is more to say with the brilliance of the man who I think pushed the limits of what human intelligence are capable of. The end of his life is a sad one unfortunately. God Bless and thank you for all of your videos

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

Can you please tell me who the man was?

[@arnastatcio]

@@myrddingwynedd2751 Kurt Godel

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@myrddingwynedd2751 Yes it is Kurt Godel and Einstein used to get up early in the morning just so he could walk with Godel to lessons in order to pick his brains. Godels incompleteness theorems also buried Logical positivism.

[@feedingravens]

This video is christianity in a nutshell. "I have great news for you: proof of God!" "The brightest minds have proven is beyond doubt! (But the origin of the proof must remain divinely hidden)" "But you can trust me, the bringer of the good news, that it's true, Believe me!" "But the proof is complicated, simpletons like we humans might not understand it. Due to God's nature, that is even normal, even expected, if not unavoidable that you do not understand the proof." "But it is the real, undeniable proof of God's existence, believe me" "I just show you the proof for a second, and do not make ANY explanations. I tell you the reason is that you shall not be influenced. That that means that I give you ZERO tools to reproduce that logical construct - why should you? All you need to know is that it is true. It is anyhow so that truly blessed are those that are able to believe without evidence or even against the evidence." God would be able to provide anyone with a personal persuasive, convincing proof of his existence, regardless of IQ 30 or IQ 230, of language or location. All these 9 minutes say is "Believe me because I say so, because I say I am a man of God."

[@kaasci]

Axion 3 is questionable, if I'm going to be honest. The thing is axioms in mathematics aren't assertions about reality, they're assertions about mathematics, axion 3 is an assertion about reality and thus the whole proof begs the question. Maths is incredibly useful for describing reality much in the same way that the written word is, and you can describe any reality you want using mathematics; that doesn't make it true.

[@ArtyomLensky]

It's not a mathematical formula, it's a logical formula.

[@kaasci]

@@ArtyomLensky Same applies to any system of formal logic, including the modal logic used here.

[@bashotep1840]

(Don’t hate if I’m missing something) Why should any property entailed by a positive property be positive? My example: Kindness is a positive property. Being overly kind can cause harm to one’s self (because people tend to care less about themselves and more about others in such cirumstances), so a property which is inherently positive consequently ends in a negative property (here the reduced health).

[@sahh9464]

You haven't defined "negative" and "positive" so your argument is based on assumptions.

[@loganm8631]

Now that I'm at a computer, I'll type out a proper reply. Since you didn't really explain the argument in your video, I'll do my best to do so in a succinct manner. 1. "Necessary" truths are those that _must_ be true 2. "Contingent" truths are those that _can_ be true 3. God is a perfect being 4. If something is perfect, then it must exist 4. If God exists in any possible world, then he must exist in every possible world, including our own 5. Therefore, God exists There are several problems with this argument, but I'll just address the most obvious. By defining "perfect" as something that must exist, and then by defining God as perfect, you are literally just defining God into existence. Let me restate the argument to show the absurdity. 1. "Necessary" truths are those that _must_ be true 2. "Contingent" truths are those that _can_ be true 3. My maid is a perfect being 4. If something is perfect, then it must exist 4. If my maid exists in any possible world, then he must exist in every possible world, including our own 5. Therefore, my maid exists And yet, I still don't have a maid.

[@cypher2251]

Thank you, someone who actually understands the argument and leaves feedback. This is one of the flaws with Godel's argument and there are many others, like the absence of a definition for the terms "positive" and "God-like". This leaves us to interpret what these mean, leading to the argument being inconsistent and invalid. I am glad that more people actually take the time than all these people in the comments who have just simply accepted that they do not have the ability to comprehend this so it must be true.

[@MrAwombat]

Not gonna lie, this came off as very condescending. To put up a proof written in terms most people don’t understand and then saying “you can’t look it up out you’re not smart enough to have this conversation!” is beyond unfair. People don’t understand it because it’s in technical jargon, not because they can’t follow the argument when it’s articulated in actual words. Also, to say “don’t think you can refute it! You’re a dumb dumb and these guys are way too smart for you!” is a pretty low blow and is just an appeal to authority

[@bungscrung3337]

Yeah chief Imma need that in English.

[@marcokite]

you're not alone!

[@amish-ish]

It is in English. It's just in the form of mathematical proofs, which is the nerd's English.😋

[@nmkloster]

I'll wager a substantial amount that Brian can't provide what you need. He just heard someone say that it was a good proof...

[@tainii-san5879]

@@amish-ish We're gonna need that in layman's English!

[@AmericanAkosm]

7:45 It's in plain English. Seems a bit redundant, but it is logical IF you follow the assumption that mathematics are an expression of pure logic. (from my very limited autodidactic understanding, the presenter is not really addressing mathematics honestly because he is ignoring mathematical paradox, and he should address examples of paradox, not only in pursuit of wisdom, but also because to assume that theoretical formulation is unable to be logically paradoxical is irresponsible. Contrary to what most people understand, physicists apply some paradoxical ideas to reality- as we know, paradox is logically fallacious in a Socratic sense... Maybe I am confusing the idea of fallacy between science and philosophy... Idunno...) What the presenter fails to address is that mathematics can be paradoxical, especially when dealing with creation models of the universe (in spots where infinite sequences arise) . I am not a mathematician, and I am totally lost in the Greek formulation- however, these are premises of logic which can be followed; they're just really cumbersome for most people. This was purposeful in part of the presenter, so that you would accept his premise as an absolute, while discounting other formulations which (while not directly doing so) might contradict his formulation.

[@cupoftea1630]

No, looking for other people's refutations is not trusting another authority. It's about hearing both sides of the argument and then activly considering both sides to make a conclusion. The last part is the important thing you left out. It's not that I simply believe another person, I also think critically about their argument just like I think critcally about the argument you presented.

[@JohnAlbertRigali]

Another *lengthy* but excellent lead-in. My college logic professor would’ve enjoyed it. The proof’s font size is too small to read on my smartphone. Will revisit later.

[@bujinkanatori]

I thought you were going to give a mathematical proof of God's existence. how silly of me to expect you to actually do it.

[@GulfsideMinistries]

So I took the time to work through it, and as suggested in my last comment, this argument fails for the same reason that Plantinga's fails. Here the problem is with Axiom 3 and the corollary that necessarily follows Theorem 1. That problem is circularity. The moment we define God as necessarily existing, we are positing not merely that necessary existence is possible but that God has this property. I don't think either of these can be known a priori. I think both of these are self-evidently true on God's side of the equation, so to speak. This, by the way, is just Aquinas' objection to the ontological argument generally. For those who have taken the time to do proper metaphysics, they can come to see the necessity of God's existence, that He must instantiate in all possible worlds. But it is not something that can be posited at the beginning without begging the question. After all, the atheist can simply deny Axiom 3 on the basis of incoherence. They can assert that God-like is *not* positive because God-like is incoherent. This becomes clearer when you think in Plantinga's terms. The moment you grant the possibility of God's existence, *defining God's existence as existing in all possible worlds*, you've already given away the farm, so to speak. So the atheist doesn't say that God exists in some worlds and not others. The atheist says God exists in no possible worlds because the very notion is incoherent, and that it is incoherent on precisely these grounds (i.e., that we can conceive of a world in which "God does not exist" is a meaningful statement). So we have to show on other grounds entirely that God is necessary and thus exists in all possible worlds. But once you've done that, you've already shown that God exists. And having so shown it, it's now obvious that "God does not exist" is not, as we might have first thought, a meaningful sentence. And there are, of course, many sentences we can at first think are meaningful but, in fact, are not. Chomsky gives us a good example in "colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Or we can point out silly questions like, "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" We know the terms, but ultimately, the referent is mere nonsense. And so it is here. This argument only works once you have established God's existence on other grounds. Until then, it is circular, and thus, it is entirely unhelpful.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"That problem is circularity." Yes, I observed that almost immediately. Positivity defines God, and God defines positivity.

[@kaleb749]

Before we get started, I’ll show my work at the end... This “proof” is entirely circular and fallacious.The axioms are not self evident, and the connections made between them to arrive at a conclusion are massive leaps in logic. Your deflection for this shows how thoroughly you don’t understand logical arguments. An axiom is a fact, a rule under which we operate. For us to operate under faulty rules would bring us a faulty conclusion, and not an actually logical argument. For instance, let’s say I’m making an argument that the color of grass is the color of the sky. If I said “axiom 1, the sky is green. Axiom 2, grass is green. Conclusion: therefore grass is the color of the sky” would you find issue with my conclusion, or the axiom I used to arrive at it? Take axiom 5 of this argument. It is saying that existence is morally good. Is this fact? No. Unless you assume that objective morality exists, and then what decides objective morality? Christians believe God does. So the “proof” for God’s existence then relies on me assuming God exists? Make no mistake, whoever is reading this: this is an incredibly bad argument, and the focus is not on what it’s saying, but how it’s being said. It’s made deliberately confusing to destroy your confidence in your rationality, and believe that its complexity is genuine. There is no reason that this argument can’t be put into layman’s terms. There is no reason to show the argument in logical notation first. There is no reason this KZbinr should be saying maybe you shouldn’t challenge the argument because the argument was made by someone smarter than you. Work: Definition 1: this is defining a trait. This trait, which I am going to call T (since they use X to mean god-like or God interchangeably), is to be godlike. To be godlike, you must have properties that are only morally good. Definition 2: this is defining a trait that will have something in common with X. object A is an aspect of X. B is a property of A. If B is a property of A, and A is an aspect of X, then X must have property B. (This is where our first logical error occurs. Let’s pretend object A is your gas tank, and X is your car. You gas tank has property B, which is being wet because of gasoline. Your car has a gas tank. Does this mean your car is wet? No, the car is not wet just because it has a gas tank that is wet. Therefore, X can have A, without having A’s properties which are B.) Definition 3: X only exists if every aspect you’d expect X to have is shown. Axiom 1: if a property is morally good, then for it to not exist wouldn’t be morally good. This really doesn’t mean anything. Please look up the definition of axiom yourself Axiom 2: Any property implied by a morally good trait must be morally good. (This is where the second logical fallacy occurs. Let’s say our trait is honesty. Honesty implies that if someone asks if I like their hat, I’ll reply with the truth. If the truth is that I don’t, a property of that truth can be hurtful ness for the owner of the hat. Thus, morally good traits don’t always have morally good properties) Axiom 3: the property of being God-like is morally good. Axiom 4: if a property is morally it is morally good. Yes, there are more than a couple of these meaningless statements. Axiom 5: the existence of a universe is morally good. (This is our third logical fallacy, and the one that completely destroys the argument. Objective morality without a God is impossible. This axiom then assumes God exists, which the argument is trying to prove without assuming) Axiom 6: if you’re Property P, and Property P is morally good, then being Property P is morally good. Told you. Theorem 1: if a property is morally good, then it is consistent. Corollary 1: being God-like is morally good, and therefore consistent as a trait Theorem 2: if our something is God-like, then being god-like is an aspect of being God Theorem 3: this theorem assumes you have been following along, which is why it’s so short. In the prior axioms and definitions and such, X has been referring to God, A has been referring to the universe, and B and T has been referring to being God-like and objectively morally good interchangeably. The argument, then, is that since the universe’s existence is an objective moral good, and being objectively morally good is god-like, and to be like something, that something has to exist, therefore God must exist.

[@sahh9464]

You have proven to misunderstand the BASICS of logic. A logical argument can be valid but false. False premises (axioms in this case) lead to false conclusions even when the argument is sound. The argument does not have to be fallacious to be wrong.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

The axioms are pretty self-evident if you stop and think about them. The proof in neither circular or fallacious. Your calling it such demonstrates that you don't really know what those terms mean.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

"So the “proof” for God’s existence then relies on me assuming God exists? " No. No. No. The proof does not say that. You are making a false statement.

[@thaddeuspawlicki4707]

You are just SO wrong on your criticism of definition 2. "Containment" is not the same as "essence" Your car contains a gas tank, it's not the same as an essential property. You might want to brush up on modal logic.

[@Omega.Everywhere]

Bravo!

[@SpaceLordof75]

You said that they are truths that we cannot understand. And then you say that God is defined as being greater than any other thing. What happens if I reject that definition?

[@Nick-mp1zh]

In summary, "I think god exists, therefore god must exist"

[@mhnv9436]

whist using axioms of logic yes you can prove God exists, how can you prove undeniably that he does not ? if you are a skeptic you can't If you throw away axioms you you will have an incoherent view view of reality of anything, as throwing away the axioms of time and space and hence possibility, necessity or causality, being a causal skeptic would denying can lead to rejection of natural sciences and logic . if you think for CERTAIN that god does not exist it is also not skeptical position, because you seem to be sure of its non-existence in absolute. disbelieve in something is also a form of belief of the absolute non-existence of something, however a skeptics cannot subscribe to that. Moreover, a skeptic should also be skeptical of approaching things from a skeptical standpoint, which can be self refuting. Therefore any skeptic that is not a radical skeptic is infact a selective skeptic ,and atheists are nothing but selective skeptic skeptics who make active claims of nonexistence in absolute ,WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING FOR CERTAIN SOMETHINGS FOR UNCERTAIN without reason. And selective skeptics like atheists are inconsistent. They would readily believe something for certain but not something else. like basically believing what they desire. Whereas the theistic belief is something that is rooted innately, as the mind in presupposed structures it to have the capability of using sensory information in a time, space, causality which encompasses NECCESSITY and contingency. without these innate cognitive structures we cannot make sense of raw sensory information.(read emanual kant ). This is the reason why we have this axiom. without this axiom or any theoretical axiom you cannot make sense of anything. And every axiom has a necessary existence, without it is inexplicable. Therefore if you do not like calling this necessary existence God or anything which is free from contingent actualities, it does not disprove its existence. Therefore according to sufficient reasoning God exists.

[@ninmarwarda5154]

I was an atheist then an agnostic for about 4.5-5 years, and the genius guy who you are talking about is the one who made me believe in God! He is the mathematician who was a nightmare to the great genius mathematician "David Hilbert" when he said "we are here to know and we shall know!" in a mathematics conference, then just a while after that another great genius (whiich was a great friend of Einstein) came up with this mind-blowin and scary mathematical theorem!!! Hats off to him. Just let me finish with a quote by another French mathemtician after he studied that theorem, he said "God exists because we know that Maths is consistent, however the devil exist because we cannot prove that Maths is consistent"! Enjoy

[@gazagxrlx2974]

God cannot make something objectively true...If something is an eternal truth, it's neither created or invented... Unlike God

[@johnx140]

the fuck? that literally dont make sense@@gazagxrlx2974

[@darrylelam256]

Me, waiting for 'Mathematical Proof of God's Existence' Video is over and I'm still waiting for Mathematical Proof of God's Existence.

[@Northman1963]

Me too. Yawn.

[@ianjperry6772]

Here’s the thing. We are trying to understand that which is by definition, beyond our understanding. A creation can never fully understand its creator.

[@tonguemybumb]

yeah because this creator probably doesn't exist.

[@miguelcosta7315]

I understand my parents. Not always but mostly.

[@user-vf5mx8fh8j]

We can always try.

[@ianjperry6772]

@@tonguemybumb I’m sorry you feel that way

[@ianjperry6772]

@@user-vf5mx8fh8j absolutely. Never said there was any harm in trying.

[@kenny78166]

It's Gödel, easily recognisable because his argument shifts from possibility to necessity. And you're conflating the validity of logic with the truth of its conclusion. If you accept within your modal logic framework that a being with purely positive properties exists, I accept that unicorns exist: a) All unicorns have wings, b) all winged creatures can fly, ergo, c) unicorns can fly. Some of us exist in said academic circles and can say -- with confidence -- that Gödel is a genius mathematician, but does not present a serious argument for proof of God.

[@PenguinPat]

Catholic, math major here. I've read the proof and thought about it quite a bit. Brian is right that the logic is correct so long as you accept the proof's axioms and definitions. But the axioms and definitions are questionable. It does in fact prove that a God-like being exists, but what it means to be God-like is unclear. The definition of God-like that the proof gives relies on something it calls a positive property, but it never defines what that means. My main takeaway is that the proof is logically valid, though the God-like being it proves to exist does not necessarily resemble what we consider to be God.

[@withremnanthearts]

It's 42 isn't?

[@grumpus3046]

Life, The Universe...Everything. Sounds about right, my friend.

[@MrRicardosaint]

😂😂😂😂😂. Respect, man!

[@jakobgray9899]

Dammit! I thought it was fish. Guess I have to start all over.

[@MajestyofReason]

In my estimation, the argument--while ingenius--does not succeed. This is because, by my lights, it doesn't give non-theists reason to change their position. We know from the modal ontological argument that God is either necessarily existent or impossible. [We're solely concerned here with metaphysical possibility, necessity, and impossibility.] Thus, no non-theist would grant that God's existence is metaphysically possible, for that would automatically commit them to theism. (Just as no theist would grant that God's non-existence is metaphysically possible, for that would automatically commit them to non-theism.) With this being said, the non-theist is already well within their epistemic rights in taking God to be metaphysically impossible. (Just as the theist is in their rights in taking God to be metaphysically necessary.) But in that case, the non-theist will be well within their rights in rejecting Axiom 3, i.e. the claim that being God-like is positive. For we've just seen that they're within their rights in holding that God is metaphysically impossible. And thus they're well within their rights in holding that the property of being God-like is metaphysically impossible, i.e. it is necessarily uninstantiated. But if p is metaphysically impossible, then p entails q, for any q. This is the principle of explosion in logic. Thus, the non-theist is well within their rights in holding that the property of being God-like entails q, for any q. Thus, they're well within their rights in holding that the property of being God-like entails having negative properties. But a positive property, by definition, entails only other positive properties. Hence, the non-theist is well within their rights in holding that the property of being God-like is negative. And in that case, they will simply (and justifiably) reject Axiom 3. And in that case, the argument doesn't give them any reason to change their mind. For further critical appraisal of this argument, see the work of Graham Oppy on ontological arguments [he wrote the SEP entry on it and also has published numerous books on them.]

[@npswm1314]

Ok. Fair points. But i feel like he didnt intend this video to be taken alone or completely at face value. No argument should be. This argument works in conjunction with other such arguments.

[@MajestyofReason]

@@npswm1314 I like the way you think! Cumulative case approaches are the best. This is why I looove Swinburne's approach (on the theistic side) and Draper's approach (on the naturalist or non-theist side). :)

[@npswm1314]

@@MajestyofReason I mean i was just commenting to explain that you should watch his other videos as well but ok.

[@Exitnextright2]

You seem well trained in logic and reason, far above my own, and I respect that. Good work. Pat on the back for understanding logic. In a humble tradesmen's logic I would just extrapolate this: Who has rights to claim but those that God grants. The fact that the logic and reason you so understand works, is due to the creator. He is logical, consistent, and supremely intelligent. Blessings on your search for Truth.

[@janecormier7814]

I believe in HIM WHO LIVES IN ME IN A REALITY I CAN UNDERSTAND.. NOT WITH WRITTEN FORMULA’S.

[@martialhero9544]

4:43

[@sidtapia09]

Well believing doesn’t really count man. Why? Because we all are commanded to know G-d. Believe and knowledge are obviously two different concepts

[@teaglass3750]

@@sidtapia09 Even knowledge isn't good enough. "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-and shudder!" (James 2:19). "Believe" and "knowledge" are fairly closely connected. I'm not a Greek scholar but here is a copy and paste from the E-Sword program: The word "Believe" in John 3:15: πιστεύω pisteuō pist-yoo'-o From G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ): - believe (-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with. So we see it's not "believe" as in "I believe there is an apple on the table", but there is that trust aspect. I believe in Christ and His work and love for me because I've gained knowledge about God through His Word, which leads me to "trust" or "rest" in Him. Obviously, there is a work of God first in the new birth or being "born again".

[@schrodingcheshirecat]

In the 1990's I was a bridge builder. I spent a decade building bridges. While we were unloading a 98 Link-belt off a Lowboy, I went to grab a chain and binder that was laying on the trailer, sitting in the open. I tried several times and couldn't push my hands within a foot of the chain, with nothing but air between my hands and the chain, until large surges of sparks caused us workers to quickly back up from the trailer. The crane had rotated, and the boom was hitting a power line. Blue flame was sparking. I had just waded in the small stream cutting creosote piling with a chainsaw while waiting on the truck to arrive with the crane My pants and boots were soaking wet. I was the ground. Should've been burned alive. It's been nearly 30 years now. As time passed, my mother let me borrow her copy of Corrie Ten-boom's book "Tramp for the Lord". It showed me how to pray. Through the years, many more times God has "shown up" in my life. Good times, bad times, real bad times,through joys, and triumphs, failures, and great loss ... but God has always been there. Always with me, always with you. No argument can dissuade me from what life has shown, time and time again. That God does exist.

[@schrodingcheshirecat]

You see the power line on the left, the sandy part on the left is close to where the low boy was parked and the bridge is just ahead a bit

[@barry.anderberg]

When you became a Christian did you become a Catholic or did your conversion to Catholicism come later?

[@BrianHoldsworth]

It came later.

[@barry.anderberg]

@@BrianHoldsworth Thanks. Feel free to make a video about influential books you've read :) I'm on the way out of protestantism but don't know where to go.

[@bujinkanatori]

Best debunking for god is here: * Define God. (I have never heard a good definition that would make any sense, or was not self refuting, or simply something mundane that we should not call a God, like love)

[@vanessa-iv8qz]

God is the completion of objective reality

[@bujinkanatori]

@@vanessa-iv8qz total gibberish to me. IIf I would ask an artist to paint God with that description, I doubt he could do it.

[@bujinkanatori]

For example, most of the time I ask ppl to define god, they say something that in no way is a definition. It is one small attribute of the entity they call god, but to give an understandable definition, that seems to be beyond theist abilities, and that means they do not know or understand god they believe in. And that is unfathomable.

[@AlDunbar]

I found a much simpler mathematical proof of god's existence. If I were a believer, this is the one I would use because it is easier to follow. Unfortunately, the inference (point 2) does not seem to follow from the premise (point 1) or, indeed, from anything else I can think of. 1. If God does not exist, the applicability of mathematics is just a happy coincidence. 2. But the applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.

[@akhiljames3435]

Yes, logic, reason and truth doesn't make any sense if God doesn't exist. Also the order in the universe and its beginning makes atleast a deistic God a highly probable reality.

[@AlDunbar]

@@akhiljames3435 since you imply that logic and reason make sense, can you use logic to demonstrate the truth of your statement that "logic, reason and truth doesn't make any sense if God doesn't exist"?

[@lobstered_blue-lobster]

Uhh who did you get that from?

[@AlDunbar]

@@lobstered_blue-lobster where did who get what from?

[@palyddon]

This seems like a mathematical variant of the Ontological Argument, which I find hard enough for most people to really gets their heads around, but thanks for bringing it to everyone’s attention.

[@ModernPapist]

If only logic classes were taught in schools.

[@dodgyphilisopher9905]

@rcormon thank you for this comment now I can look this up.

[@francisfogarty3942]

I was thinking the same thing

[@WeebSlayer71]

It's a variant, but the conclusion is not exactly the same. The conclusion presented in this video is basically the completely possible logical necessity of an entity with the property of "God" to exist. So it's not that God exists perse... it's that, assuming the axioms apply to our understanding of what "God" and "existence" entail, then an entity with "God" properties is a logically valid conclusion. Saying God exists is a bit... flimsy imo, it kind of begs the question of what we understand of a godly being even being able to be percieved as an existing entity. This seems more lovecraftian than anything 😂

[@AndrewUnruh]

@rcormon The same guy who showed that there are unknowable truths in mathematics? Love his stuff and yes, I understand it.

[@EatHoneyBeeHappy]

Cute of Christians to want good reasons to believe, but they should really stick to faith, it's what they're good at, and what they always go back to anyway after these bad arguments get refuted. A bit condescending, I know, but if Holdsworth can dish it out he can take it.

[@ganderstein3426]

By not revealing his name, it seems this will contribute more to his relegation into the real of the obscure. I do understand your reasoning though. I've began to realize that this relegation is very more pervasive. It seems fueled by deception. Your analogy of explaining Boyle's law to your 4-year-old son is good. Also, your point about the assumption of one being intelligent enough to understand what is likely unintelligible is good.

[@psychoskate970]

I quit trying to understand God when I realized I wouldnt want a God I could understand.

[@WhelandNorm]

Self-contradictory nonsense.

[@psychoskate970]

@@WhelandNorm how so. Is it possible to fully understand god, enlighten me.

[@theSatanicNaturalists.]

@@WhelandNorm now you have 2 people to enlighten.

[@HarpsDad22]

@@psychoskate970 Why would one have to fully understand something to believe in it?

[@psychoskate970]

@@HarpsDad22 you dont, that is what faith is.

[@johns22]

Those with weakest faith are the ones who endlessly pursue the endeavor of proving God exists!!!!!! Seriously, why would a faithful pursue this endeavor? Is it because they are hollow inside and have doubts about God existence and are in need for some sort of a scientific or mathematical proof!!!! FAITH means NO PROOF is needed. If you need a proof then you are not faithful. End of story.

[@violetsonja5938]

Thank you! I know I'm late, but why would anyone who has faith need this? And if you're an atheist, this does not work since they don't accept all the axions and definitions.

[@Smitywerban]

Wow i really feel for people whos life's are so depressingly empty that they have to literally pray to an imaginary figure and even that figure isn't answering them...

[@eb60lp]

His argument is just a very long convoluted way of saying just have faith. Also no one’s asking for an exhaustive explanation of god. Any evidence outside of philosophical arguments and the Bible aka empirical evidence would be great.

[@popelfresserhasser]

Lets try to define "positive property": 1. Describes a real or possibly real thing. The property exists or could exist in reality. It is possible for a real or possibly real x to have this property. We can stop here already. "godlike" is not an actual property, until someone can demonstrate that it is possible to be "godlike". This looks like a math joke someone came up with in his lunch break to amaze their colleagues.

[@JSpra1]

This is not a ' proof', this is only ' believing'. Believe whatever you want but please do not disqualify other people by saying they never can understand it because you yourself believe in a god. That does not prove that a god exists. You imagine a figure that ' knows everything' and present that selfmade idea as a 'universal law' that no one could be arguing. Please, believe whatever you want, but do not try to overrule people who possibly have a beter Antwerpen to realiteit. For instance: god does not exist. Ofcourse I do not know that either, but I am not that arrogant to spread it as 'the truth'. Be happy with your own faith if you want to, but please do not judge the intellectual qualities of the ones you disqualify in advance by saying they could never understand a entity in which you believe and in my opinion does not exist. Ido not know

[@Kitiwake]

Read a little about the life and mathematical philosophy of Blais Pascal. (Pascal's wager fame) He opined that reason will only take one so far in understanding God. The rest is a matter of faith. Just interesting.

[@kelechukwuanosike767]

Faith is a light that guides reasoning. I agree, reasoning has a limit

[@jimpeschke3435]

Much more wisdom than in this mathematical "proof".

[@gregorcutt1199]

Reading the whole thing, it does look like a variation of an argument proposed by a certain archbishop a long time ago. And that's not me lapsing into argument from authority. I find it very convincing. I also find a variation of one of Aquinas's arguments, the argument of the improbability of contingent being, to be even more convincing on a metaphysical level.

[@badatpseudoscience]

Its Gödel's ontological argument.

[@grailcountry]

No variation is required for any of Aquinas's proofs, only clarification. People think they know what Aquinas means, but moderns seldom do.

[@gregorcutt1199]

@@grailcountry some moderns who have graduate degrees in medieval philosophy understand him fine. and we also understand that citing Thomas as an authority uncritically is completely contrary to the spirit of Thomas's own thinking.

[@grailcountry]

@@gregorcutt1199 some moderns who have graduate degrees in medieval philosophy understand him fine. (Appeal to authority) employed to critique my appeal to authority. Look, I'm not going to get into the finer points of Aquinas in a KZbin comment. What I wanted you to see is that you had an unjustified, and typically modernist bias that just automatically assumes that all knowledge is like technology and that newer is always better. In philosophy this bias has no place. Challenge it, or don't challenge it, you will be the one who suffers. I have my own bias, everything a since Descartes is total rubbish. But I would be a fool to stop engaging with new ideas and challenging my own bias. I was trying to do you the favor of pointing out your bias to you. My purpose wasn't to get into a long discussion over the finer points of Thomism.

[@gregorcutt1199]

@@grailcountry You took an innocent, honest comment about one of the five proofs and instead of asking what my take on it was, you immediately accused me of not understanding Aquinas. You should have started this conversation with "Interesting. What is your variation on the argument from contingency?" That would have been more charitable and productive. If you wish to have intelligent conversations, you might consider a starting position that's less hostile. I'm done with this thread.

[@Talenel]

I found the flaw. Existence is not a property, but the prerequisite for anything to have any properties. It is that which you map properties to, not a property itself. Oh, and I loved the appeal to an unknown authority. You know that brilliant people can still be wrong about things, right? Newton might have given us his Three Laws of Motion, but he was also an alchemist trying to create the Philosopher's Stone. Or Gödel, who was a great mathematician, but came up with a rubbish argument for God that is just a mathematical version of the Ontological Argument.

[@alexsalentine739]

You should write a book, documenting all of your studies and proof. Please!

[@level3143]

This is not his "proof"; it's Gödel's. And it's a proof with known flaws.

[@emmanuel8310]

@@level3143 And you came up with those flaws, yourself... Or you went to some other sources to do that for you like he already predicted? 🤣😂

[@level3143]

@@emmanuel8310 no I did not go to some other source upon watching the video. I am a mathematician and was already well aware of both this "proof" and the volumes of refutations of it. Furthermore, it's a bit odd/dishonest of Brian to post someone else's long debunked "proof", and then refuse to cite it to prevent people from finding said refutations.

[@emmanuel8310]

@@level3143 Hahaha! Very funny?! Are you Isaac Newton or something?? You saw it from somewhere, you're not the source yourself... And it's not a mathematics that's so ubiquitous... You came across it at some point (no matter what you claim to be). And... How much do we know that you even understand it yourself??! 🙄 So, it still stands that... You're quoting external sources of what you can't exactly phantom yourself... And that's exactly what he said.

[@laszlokiss483]

@@emmanuel8310 The dogma of scientism is a funny thing

[@GuggaWuggaGaming]

As someone who fully understands the logic of this proof, I must admit I object to axiom 1 on the basis of the positive property P not being well defined. Also, I hope that one day people stop portraying math and logic as incomprehensible to the average person. The only thing that is complex about this proof is the notation. Wishing the best to all of the believers nonetheless.

[@wolflarsen1900]

no my friend the notation is the least hard part of this proof. its just second order modallogic. To evaluating and understanding the axioms is the hardest part of this proof. People normaly not even get what positive property means. But you are right in that context that math and logic schouldt be potrayed as ununderstandable for the average. But its also true that its not possible to understand logic and math without a foundationed education of it.

[@wilhufftarkin8543]

"Also, I hope that one day people stop portraying math and logic as incomprehensible to the average person." I absolutely agree with that. As a kid, I hated math and was afraid of math class, because I was convinced that I wouldn't understand it, anyway. This of course led to me absolutely failing at math, because I didn't learn the basics. However, when I went to trade school, I was forced to learn the basics, so I just gave it a try and suddenly I noticed it's not hard at all if you want to understand it. That was a couple of years ago. Now I'm a math major and I love it.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

Exactly. The word "positive" appears to be undefined; it is whatever God does.

[@bhangrafan4480]

You provided the axioms. You provided some definitions. You then stated some theorems and a corollary, but it seems to have escaped your notice that you did not provide the proofs of the theorems. I don't think you know what you are doing.

[@thebitterartist]

For those who were confused by the language which was designed to confuse you - it basically boils down to saying that god has the trait of “necessary existence” thus god exists. However it is circular reasoning to assume the existence of something (to then assume the trait of something) to then prove the existence of it. There were a bunch of other flaws in the video, such as using faith and prove in different ways to confuse the audience - for example saying you are putting faith (trust based on evidence) in someone else’s refutation who has studied in the field; then he equates that to blind faith (trust without evidence) in god. Or when he used “prove” to mean convince, rather than show how something is true. Finally, saying that by definition god is above us (which is circular reasoning) thus we wouldn’t understand the proofs; is just plain wrong. If god existed, they could easily prove there existence - in fact, the need for apologetics seems to make the hypothesis that god doesn’t exist (or at least doesn’t want their existence proven) more likely. I don’t have the time to go over all the other flaws, so just take what he says with a grain of salt.

[@kilingkiling-tinybell]

I don't think faith and logic are the same and can coexist. If they do it's like 1 + 1 = any number you wish.

[@marcobarcenas2650]

For those who are wondering what the Mathematical proof is, it's known as Gödel's ontological proof. Gödel is using symbols( as this is symbolic logic) in order to simplify the premises made in his argument. I have to admit I do not understand what the symbols mean as I never took symbolic logic but basically he's using premises, a subject and a predicate in order to form his argument for the existence of God. Hope that helps!!!!

[@korbendallas5318]

First off: Myself and others have explained why the central idea behind that other video was faulty. You just ignored it.

[@thereindeertherabbitthebat592]

I REALLY wish I had someone who could attempt to explain this to me 😭

[@dbob132]

This is Gödel's Ontological argument for god. It was discovered after he died in his night stand and was probably never meant to be published. It essentially formalizes an ontological argument in Modal Logic, which means: It attempts to prove that a characteristic of a maximally great being would be existence. In other words, in order for a being to be maximally great it must exist, otherwise it would not be as great as a being that did exist. While sort of subverting the problems Kant raised with ontological arguments of his day, it does run into two major problems. The first being an idea with in Modal Logic call Modal Collapse. In Modal Logical propositions can be possible, necessary, contingent, or impossible. Where possible is: not necessarily false, necessary is: not possibly false, contingent is: not necessarily false and not necessarily true, and impossible is not possibly true. Simple enough, but the problem of Modal Collapse comes in when every true statement becomes necessary and no true statement can be contingent. What does this actually mean? Well this maximally great being must do great things by its definition and it cannot do things that are not great. Meaning that its existence is fully reliant on its inability to do any action, thought, or any tangentially related verb that would negate whatever adjective ascribed to the being. At best this removes free will, as this being no longer has the choice to not be great, at worst this destroys the argument as it has become circular, the being has to exist since there was never the option of the being not to exist. The second problem is David Hilbert's problem of element substitution, which is where we get the majority of modern geometric mathematics, but the core concept is simple. When talking about axioms, the elements within those axioms (in this case the adjective maximally great would be one) do not need to be treated with any explicit meaning. In the axioms that make up geometry we have point, line, and plane but we can change the words to tables, chairs, and glasses (this is David Hilbert's example) and the axioms are still valid, it is there relation to each other that matters. So, where does that leave us? Well we can change the elements, the adjectives, in the axioms of Gödel's proof to prove the maximally evil being or the maximally purple being. The relationship between the axioms still holds, the fundamental logic that it is built upon, but the intuition that we now have about the being has changed (Is God evil? Is God Purple?). In fact we could prove the existence of just about any being given we chose our adjectives correctly. In short, we have had nearly 100 years to look at this proof, a proof that really wasn't meant to be publish and was more of a play thing of Gödel in his spare time.

[@Scarlet-recommends]

@@dbob132 that was mind blowing, thank you Sm for you effort❤️

[@johnx140]

A great being is not one that can ONLY do great things, but that is capable of them in the first place. I can be super buff and never use most of my strength on my job, but that oesnt mean im not buff anymore.@@dbob132

[@LuxInTenebris458]

With all this talk of essences and necessities, I am reminded of a immensely intelligent visiting RC Professor during my studies at Lutheran seminary who introduced us to an even more immensely intelligent person: St. Thomas Aquinas.... Boy, after those classes I thought that all apologetics of the post enlightenment era are like Kindergarten in comparison. The closest I can get to describing this is me cooking away as a student thinking myself a rather good cook and then watching Master Chef Australia and literally having my jaw on the floor the whole time, realizing that there is a whole new level of food out there in the world, and what I have been doing wasn't really cooking, it was more like...pathetic food agglomeration in boiled water and oven.

[@johnmartin7346]

(GODEL, utilising Modal S5 Logic): • Axiom 1: Either a property or its negation is positive. • Axiom 2: A property that is necessarily implied by a positive property is positive. • Theorem 1: Positive characteristics may be due to an existent entity. • Definition 1: A God-like entity has all the positive features. • Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive. • Conclusion: Perhaps God exists. • Axiom 4: Positive characteristics are necessarily positive. • Definition 2: A property is the essence of an entity, if it belongs to the entity and necessarily implies all the properties of the entity. • Theorem 2: To be God-like is the essence of every God-like entity. • Definition 3: An entity exists necessarily if all of its essences are necessarily realized in an existing entity. • Axiom 5: Necessarily existing is a positive property. • Theorem 3: God must necessarily exist.

[@cyranium]

Why is the 2nd page not in the right order? Just makes it a pain to read. The reason this shouldn’t convince any Atheist is simple. You are starting out with the assumption that God exist, this doesn’t prove that a God exist it just simply says that if there was a God, they would be a positive (good) God.

[@cyranium]

I would also like to point out that if this proves that God is Good, then Christianity would be false because the God of the Old Testament is certainly not good as killing people in the tens of thousands is not something a Good God would do.

[@Pohgrey]

"Not gonna tell you who came up with this, but most of you are too dumb to refute him so don't even try..." Well hell. Since you put it that way I guess I'd better just believe and stop asking questions!

[@JimCvit]

This is too deep for me. I just know that God exists and that's enough for me.

[@jngbardi3126]

You're a old man

[@I.KUchiha]

😂😂❤️❤️💯

[@coffeetalk924]

Oh ya? Well i just saved 15% by switching my insurance to Geico. And that's enough for me. Lol

[@jimpeschke3435]

I know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. That's good enough for me.

[@g07denslicer]

3:28 This should make no difference to anyone. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. The person who formulated them has absolutely zero impact on their validity, so it makes no difference if you reveal the author's name or not.

[@ultimateoriginalgod]

Right, but how many say that just aquinas or Sam Harris said something it must be true?

[@g07denslicer]

@@ultimateoriginalgod Well, personally I never met anyone who would make that claim, but if they did then they are being irrational.

[@ultimateoriginalgod]

@@g07denslicer we are not purely rational animals, we are impulsive and tribal. It takes grace and a special person to be objective

[@jonathanstensberg]

The person who formulated it has no impact on their objective validity, true. However, humans can only strain toward objective truth, and their judgment of arguments is not purely rational but rather colored by their personal desires and prejudices.

[@jb888888888]

Unfair. If I can't go research somewhere to find out reasons why it might be wrong, then you shouldn't be allowed to use someone else's "mathematical proof." You should present your own proof. Especially since your proof is from one of the greatest minds. Why can't I use one of the greatest minds too? Maybe my "greatest mind" is greater than your "greatest mind."

[@kennyearthling7965]

For those who actually want information, look up Gödel axiomatic proof of the existence of god. To save you time, it's a version of the Ontological argument. Which basically boils down to "existence is part of the definition of God, therefore he exists" Which is easily understandable, and patently untrue.

[@dariuszkucz565]

I didn’t know this particular logical argument in this form. Kurt Goedel, Austrian logician, who indeed was one of the greatest minds in the world’ history developed “ incompleteness theorem “ that says that any logical system is necessarily dependent on the proposition that can’t be proven within this logical system. There is no human construct or system of thought that is not reliant on some reality outside itself. Goedel told Einstein who was his close friend that he thought he developed the mathematical prove of the existence of God.

[@richardlopez6226]

Have you read Isaac Newton’s or Galileo’s proof for the Existence of God?

[@seasinatorsead2494]

This is Gödel's Ontological Argument.

[@dariuszkucz565]

@@richardlopez6226 no , I didn’t

[@hbarwickjr]

The absolute fulfillment of prophecies come true fortold from hundreds to thousands of years before, an honest observation visit to a zoo and a look in a mirror is plenty of overwhelming proof alone. He is that he is the great I Am.

[@philipcoriolis6614]

The absolute fulfillment of prophecies come true ???

[@josephanton2059]

I don’t need proof

[@v3le]

Man you are enlightened!

[@garyroman3196]

You mean you don’t need proof that Allah is the one and only true God because your faith is enough proof?

[@christ5672]

Yes you do. Otherwise you’re lying about what you actually believe, if you don’t believe it without proof

[@charlesvandenburgh5295]

I exist. This, for me, is a self-evident truth. I don’t need a long drawn out argument to prove it to myself. The laws of logic are equally self-evident. No stronger proof of their validity is needed or possible. God’s existence, unlike my existence and logic, is not self-evident such that the concept of God is its own sufficient proof of God. How can this be if God is the very basis of reality and logic.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Because there's something wrong with you and I.

[@charlesvandenburgh5295]

That argument, if valid, could be used to justify any absurdity.@@BrianHoldsworth

[@Northman1963]

​@@BrianHoldsworthAh, the dogmatic belief in original sin, the most heinous of all Catholic and Christian mind control tactics.

[@tgstudio85]

@@BrianHoldsworth *Because there's something wrong with you and I.* Nope just you.

[@carlosfigueiredo8193]

What one can understand of God is only what He has revealed to us for salvation; if/when one is fortunate to “glean” more than this, there are no human ways of describing it ( but one’s life changes and impacts those of others).

[@susanstandard8727]

This is so amazing to me...my dad used to say mathematics prove God! He was born in 1914. He also used to say “don’t go to Hell, don’t go to Jail, and don’t go to the poor house! I took that as faith, honesty, and effort. Hmmm.

[@Biosynchro]

Many people are under the delusion that poverty = goodness under Christian teaching, but that's BS and I wish people would stop it. Poverty is a kind of hell in itself.

[@BokanProductions]

1914?! How old are you?!

[@susanstandard8727]

@@BokanProductions Old!

[@Satori-g4v]

: )

[@joshuawilliams9276]

Sounds like you have a good father brother cherish those blessings mate not everyone gets parents. I say the same thing to my boys by the way when God returns some sort of math algorithm is gonna come out and say there was proof all along lol the proof is in the word just seek him first in all of your ways and he will direct your path, also says my people parish for lack of knowledge. Look up folks he's giving us signs for the season. Love yal stay prayed up. Maranatha!!!

[@timclark2880]

I think you have a logical fallacy when you say: "God by definition is beyond any human capacity to fully understand. So when you demand proof in such a way that you can fully understand it, it's self-contradictory." You are correct that the *essence* of God is beyond human understanding, but we're formulating proofs about God's *existence*. i.e., *that* He is, not *what* He is. Thomas himself says that demonstration of God's existence is demonstration quia, not demonstration propter quid. Basically, you are asserting the 2nd objection of question 2 article 2.

[@reasonforge9997]

Happen to have a background in Mathematics, and have heard of this one. Although I have not tried to critique it. I won't mention who it was, but yeah, their mathematical credentials are off the charts.

[@lobstered_blue-lobster]

Kurt Gödel

[@JohnCamacho]

While we use axioms in mathematics this doesn't mean you can create your own and use the excuse that you don't need to prove them

[@brettmitchell7851]

First of all, I would like to point out that regardless of objections to any of steps taken or axioms assumed, the proposition fails on the basis that its conclusion reduces to a useless tautology. Definition 1 establishes a label (God-like) for the set of all essential positive properties. Definition 2 defines an "essence" as a property which implies exactly all of the properties of the subject. Definition 3 declares "necessary exemplification" in terms of the universal exemplification of the property's set of possible essences. Axiom 5 declares "necessary exemplification" defined in Definition 3 to be a member of the set "God-like properties" defined in Definition 1 Thus, the conclusion in Theorem 3 essentially reduces to the following: "Necessarily, the property of being exemplified is exemplified", or in other words: "If something necessarily exists, then it exists". Unfortunately, this is useless information that does nothing to prove the existence of anything. Secondly, and equally important, an axiomatic failure of this argument lies in Theorem 1 and Corollary 1. There is no reason (or at least there is no reason provided) to think that all positive properties are required to be possible. Necessary existence is a member of the set of positive "inconsistent" properties (using the definition from the argument) because, at its root, it is derived from equivocal redefinition of the term "possible world" (making it inconsistent [standard definition] to use with a standard definition of "possible world"). Thus, in Corollary 1, the set of properties labeled as "God-like" is in fact NOT consistent, Theorem 2 cannot succeed to show the property "God-like" as an essence of anything, and Theorem 3 falls flat.

[@MrAwombat]

As someone who believes in God, I think the flaws you point out here are very valid.