The Ontological Argument (1 of 2) | by MrMcMillanREvis

[@siren4744]

please make more videos for AS and A2, you saved my life at GCSE and I need you to continue saving my life at A level.

[@72daystar]

Most accessible explanation of the ontological argument I've yet heard.

[@floydmayweather7830]

Thank you so much MrMcMillan, after struggling throughout the school year and then achieving an A grade in my AS philosophy exam, I cannot thank you enough. Your videos are perfectly made with simplicity and detail which gave me a perfect understanding which I just could not gain in class. Your videos on the cosomological/ontological argument and the problem of evil came up in the exam, thank you for making these. Would love to see some more A2 content though !

[@emilygamon1149]

This has completely salvaged my Philosophy A-Level! Thank you for explaining this with clarity and eloquence

[@Watcher1301]

This argument is ingenius because you feel something is wrong with it but at the same time you can't say exactly what's wrong.

[@mrminne6]

My teacher for philosophy never taught us anything. She left mid year and we did nothing. I watched this videos back to back the week before exam and because of you I got a B for my a level. Thank you so much.

[@VxHyDr0xV]

Hi, I see it's been about 5 months since your last upload. I'm an A-level student who is currently doing A2 philosophy and ethics as a subject. During my AS exams last year, I got 192 UMS out 0f 200UMS (Grade A) all thanks to this guy. Your videos about the cosmological argument and the Problem of Evil were two of the three questions I wrote about in my exam. I only have you to thank for the grade I've achieved! So thank you very much! For A2 - I am currently using your ontological argument video as one of my revision tools, however I was wondering if you could make a revision video on life after death (immortality of the soul, rebirth, resurrection and reincarnation) and Aristotle's Natural Moral Law? It's just a request and it would be awesome you could do it! But again, thank you for everything you've done so far and I hope you continue these helpful videos!

[@MrMcMillanREvis]

VxHyDr0xV Hi There! That's fantastic about your exam results! If I ever get my own website and I need a good quote for the front page I'll be using this. At the moment I am concentrating on GCSE videos, but hopefully will find time in the future to get back to some of the Sixth form topics

[@professorj.r.maynard4736]

Great videos Doc, I'm using them in my courses, keep up the Great Work!

[@bearheart2009]

Contrary to the claim of this video, the classically understood Cosmological Argument is a DEDUCTIVE argument. The premise of the C A is that all contingent things have a cause. The fact they they are contingent means they are not self subsisting (they rely on a more basic layer of composition/reality to support them). 'God' is one of the the words used to point towards the metaphysically ultimate, self subsisting reality that supports all contingent things in being. The classical understanding of God (the one that Anselm would have held) is crucial to understanding wheres he's coming from with his argument i think. When he says 'God exists' he isnt talking about a particular _instance_ of a thing existing, he's talking about that by which anything at any point in time exists or _could_ exist, even if just in theory. The reason why it is 'foolish' (in Anselms words) to say that God does not exist given the understanding of what Anselm means when he uses the word 'God' is that it would be as absurd as saying that you (an existing thing) could imagine non-existence. In order to imagine something you have to exist in order to have the capacity to imagine it in the first place, so the means necessary to be able to imagine non-existence disqualify you from being able to imagine non-existence. With this proper understanding of God (as that-self-subsisting-source/power-by-which-all-contingent-things-derive-their-existence) accepted it becomes 'foolish' to then deny Gods existence. This is part and parcel of a 'maximally great God' concept for a Theist of the classical tradition. Its important to underline that although the Ontological Argument is being phrased 'God is something than which nothing greater can be thought of', Anselm would _not_ have understood God to be a 'thing' (an instance of a particular kind of existence). Edward Feser has written a pretty thorough breakdown of the Cosmological Argument on his blog.

[@MrMartibobs]

really good explanation. Is anyone else left with the feeling that they've been conned by this? that Anselm just makes arbitrary leaps that look like logic and turn out to be sophistry?

[@marlinbundo2409]

+Marty Celestialteapot In my eyes, all the argument does is to prove that, by their definition of greatness, the greatest conceivable being would have to actually exist. It does nothing to prove that the greatest conceivable being actually DOES exist.

[@KEvronista]

*"It does nothing to prove that the greatest conceivable being actually DOES exist"* when forced to refrain from equivocation, they're left with a valid argument for the existence of a concept. (golf clap) KEvron

[@notquitebelle]

This is so clearly explained and infinitely helpful. Thank you!

[@mark72456]

Thank you so much, you literally just saved me from hours of confusion, I understood more from this short video than I did from my two-hour lecture on the topic :)

[@nkanyiso82]

Writing my Philosophy paper this Friday. this helped me so much. Shout out from South Africa

[@MrMcMillanREvis]

Thanks, glad you have found it useful!

[@JordanTyWood]

The exam is today! Thanks for the videos! Hopefully it pays off

[@JaxDH]

I have a question that really really bothers me. So I hope someone can help me with this or give me some additional ideas. Some critics of the ontological argument say that existence is not a property that adds something new to the definition of a certain idea or thing. I kind of see where they are coming from, but I have issues with this idea. I mean, isn't it sometimes a part of a definition of something whether it exists in reality or not? Let's take the example of Frankenstein. Frankenstein is a Genevese scientist who created a living monster. But, over all, he is a fictional character. I mean, isn't the fact that Frankenstein does not exist in reality a part of his definition in a way? Or let's put it like this: Would we ever say someone that really exists is Frankenstein? Like for example, if we watch a film with Frankenstein in it, we wouldn't say the person playing the role of Frankenstein is actually Frankenstein, but we would say it is an actor who represents the fictional character of Frankenstein, wouln't we? Or is this only so, because we know that the actor did not REALLY create a monster and that he is not REALLY a scientist? So, building on this idea, isn't it maybe more important what relationship the different properties of an idea or thing have? Like for example, we can say Frankenstein is a man who has black hair and is a fictional character. But it is not necessary for someone to have black hair to be a fictional character: fictionality does not determine the property of black hair. Applied to the ontological argument, one could say it is not necessary for something to exist in order to be "the greatest being" because existence is not greater than non-existence. Existence and non-existence are simply two different totally neutral modes of being so to speak, but neither one of them is in a way "greater" than the other one. So wouldn't that actually be the real point of criticism about the ontological argument, and not so much that existence is not a property?

[@Deanisimo]

Thanks so much! This video is amazing and really helped with my Year 9(UK) RS Exam!!!

[@1986Godfrey]

How I love this video.... Very articulated. God bless you sir

[@MrMcMillanREvis]

1986Godfrey Thanks agains!

[@saskiyahhhv]

I'm an AS student and this video helped understand the argument so much. Thnks!

[@harouttatarian3255]

Saskia Chandranathan hey im wondering what AS stands for?

[@saskiyahhhv]

Harout Tatarian Er. when you are 16-17yrs old. U can choose to complete your A Levels which includes 2 yrs of education (AS and A2).. This is when you complete high school and pass you are then allowed to do your A Levels. And after you finish your A Levels you can apply to University with them :) Hope this helps I'm not good at explaining!

[@guspfk]

wow such a good video, I have my A level exam this week and this has helped so much!!

[@MrMcMillanREvis]

Thanks. I hope your exam went well. Spread the word

[@BillBerends]

Great presentation.

[@PGBurgess]

I think there is a small flaw in describing deductive arguments (like the example given) as strictly 'a priory'. there may be (and there should be in this case) at least one premise that is a falsifiable, a posteriori. (in this case we could try to find out if Jerry is an actual abrador)

[@irhaiqbal2651]

Nice information sir gee make more videos

[@frankiebarrettrules]

My head hurts, very good video though!

[@MrMcMillanREvis]

That's a good sign! It means you're paying attention!

[@NuLiquidBoss]

Do you think you could expand on Kant's view of the ontological argument? Maybe what 1st order properties and such are?

[@alanticstars]

Really hope you can bring lots of A level videos, its helping the whole of my philosophy class at the moment!

[@ge0centrism82]

polar bears live in the north pole but apart from that this video is great and really useful

[@harrygreen1258]

Do you have a script for this? It would be really useful to highlight and annotate! Thanks

[@Neji961]

RE exam on Wednesday- thank you for this!

[@MrMcMillanREvis]

Hope it went well. Thanks for the comment

[@themodernshoe2466]

Nice video and well constructed, thanks.

[@MrMcMillanREvis]

Cheers!

[@leroypowell3]

Hhhhhhh.... I still don't get it.

[@nigelpyman6902]

Hello Mr Mac. Do you mind saying what you use for your brilliant graphics?

[@turabmohamed9525]

This video just made my life easier thanks Mr McMillianREvis I have a request- please could you do a video on Plato and a video on Natural law Your videos make it easier to understand for me as i am a visual learner and there's not any videos out there which are as helpful as yours Many thanks

[@AsixA6]

+Turab Mohamed Do yourself a favor & learn why the ontological argument for a god(or anything) fails horribly. Once you learn what's really being said, you won't want to use the argument because it makes you look really dumb. It's basically saying, "God exists, because I can imagine god exists." The ability to imagine something existing, doesn't mean it does.

[@turabmohamed9525]

jwkivy yeah I understand it and I already knew that it fails horribly. I only had to learn it because it's on the exam in june

[@AsixA6]

Turab Mohamed *Is the exam on why the argument fails?*

[@CplFerro]

The answer to this paradox is that it is impossible to think of a contradiction and therefore there is nothing that is begin discussed.

[@wonderingfilms1201]

By definition tomorrow implies the sun rising, so "the sun will rise tomorrow" surely is not inductive, rather it is a deductive analytic statement?

[@Kalernor]

I think it depends on how you define "tomorrow". If you define it as beginning from the sun rising, then yes you are right. If not, then no.

[@hollyblaylock3447]

this is helping SO much right now, thankyou!

[@bilalmalik3001]

You are fantastic. Thank you so much!

[@superstar082100]

Im usually good at RS but this argument confuses the fuck out of me

[@datCrayy]

Such a good teacher omgosh! Thank you

[@GRegulator1000]

Just because something is possible (something that cannot be proven impossible), therefore it must exist? Thats the fallicy of this argument. Am I getting this right, the argument assumes that it is possible that there is a great infallible creator god of neccessity? And therefore, if its possible, its true? Its possible that i will ein the lottery, doesnt mean I will. Possibilty doesnt mean existence. Am I missing something?

[@sambrooksmed9068]

no you are missing nothing. This is why the ontological argument is disputed by modern day philosophers. Just because one can conceive something to be in existance, doesn't mean it exists in reality. Gaunilo argued against Anselm using the 'perfect island analogy'. A perfect island is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it is better to exist in reality than just in the mind, therefore a perfect island exists. As we know, this simply just isn't the case. However, using the apriori deductive logic, a 'logical explanation' would be that a perfect island is contingent, and not necessary. It requires something to form it, God is not like that because he is necessary. I would still disagree with this logic under two levels. Firstly, religious believers require faith, not reason. Secondly, attempting to prove something through unfamiliar logical systems has lead to existential claims being made based on a pathetic level of immaterial evidence. You are not missing anything, you are highlighting the main criticism of the ontological argument. Have a nice day

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

*"Just because something is possible (something that cannot be proven impossible), therefore it must exist?"* The type of possibility that you are speaking of is epistemic (concerning that which is believed or known) possibility. The type of possibility that the argument deals with is ontic (concerning that which is) possibility. A good example of this would be something like the possibility of a particular person running, we'll call this person Percival. It is epistemically possible that Percival can if Percival can run for all we know. It ontically possible for Percival to run if Percival is a person without any disability which prevents running. The former is about our knowledge or beliefs about Percival while the latter is about Percival and his existential circumstances. Furthermore, it is not that "something ... cannot be proven impossible, therefore it must exist", even if such an idea were amended to be referencing ontic possibility rather than epistemic possibility; rather, the idea is that something which is metaphysically necessary, and so cannot fail to exist, must exist if it is metaphysically possible that it does, that is to say, the idea of a metaphysically necessary being just *is* that of a being which cannot fail to exist if its existence is possible. Therefore, the question is, is such a being's existence metaphysically possible? *Am I getting this right, the argument assumes that it is possible that there is a great infallible creator god of neccessity?"* It really depends on which version of the argument you are talking about. However, I can say that: (1) These arguments don't usually just assume the premises to be true. The premises are usually supported by evidence and reason. Furthermore, arguments usually work like conditionals. If the argument it valid logically, then the conclusion depends on the truth of the premises; therefore, it would again come down to the question of whether such a being's existence is metaphysically possible (i.e., able to obtain). (2) The being in question need not be infallible, only metaphysically necessary. *"Its possible that i will ein the lottery, doesnt mean I will."* If this is to be analogous, then it would need to be "if it is possible that *it is metaphysically necessary* that I will win the lottery, doesn't that mean that I will?". However, since the lottery is a game of chance, and since the lottery itself (not to mention people) is not metaphysically necessary, it would be absurd to think that it is metaphysically necessary that you would win the lottery. That would be to think that, no matter what (even if nothing else existed) you would win the lottery. *"Possibilty doesnt mean existence."* No, it doesn't. *"Am I missing something?"* I think that it is the nuances of the term "possibility" that lead to this sort of confusion. I hope that what I said was helpful.

[@Mremblog]

You have to study the ontological argument deeply to understand it. Yes, you are right, possibility doesn´t means existence except in the case for God because of its definition

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

+Mremblog *"You have to study the ontological argument deeply to understand it. Yes, you are right, possibility doesn´t means existence except in the case for God because of its definition"* Yeah. I feel, however, that people don't understand that theists aren't just cherry-picking a definition of God which would lead to His existence; rather, theists and atheists alike realize that such a being, were it to exist, must be necessary. There is no real debate over whether such a being would be necessary (though there are a few who debate this idea). The source of all things contingent must not be, itself, contingent because that would lead to an infinite regress of contingent beings. Therefore, when the theist or atheist speaks of God's possible existence, they are implicitly speaking of the existence of a metaphysically necessary being. Also, it is up to whoever is asking the question to define their terms. The monotheist is only wondering about his kind of God, a necessary being. He asks if that being's existence is possible. If it is, then it exists. This, however, is compatible with any form of monotheism (e.g., Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and some forms of Hinduism). It does not conclude to the Christian God. You probably knew all of this already (you seem well informed on the subject), but I just figured that I would put this out there for the benefit of others.

[@teekeeymisha730]

*Am I missing something?* Yes - you're missing most of the ontological argument! It's an argument built of logical steps; the conclusion only holds if each step is fulfilled to reach the conclusion. The broad conclusion "we can think about God therefore God must exist" is a *_summary_* of the argument; it is *_not_* the *_sum_* of the argument. Consider an argument that states: "IF A is true AND IF B is true AND IF C is true, THEN D must be true." It would be illogical to say, "What? IF C is true THEN D must be true? That's nonsense!" Of course it's nonsense, because it misses most of the argument. (To use the example in the video, you're saying "What? If all Labradors are dogs then Jerry must be a dog? That's nonsense!" Of course it's nonsense because you've omitted a step in the argument. Jerry must be a dog IF all Labradors are dogs AND IF Jerry is a Labrador.) It *is* possible that you will will the lottery and its being possible does *not* mean you *will* win the lottery, but the definition of "GRegulator1000 winning the lottery" is not "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Therefore the conclusion "GRegulator1000 must win the lottery" does not follow from the premises of the argument. *Just because something is possible... therefore it must exist?* Only IF the "something" is God, because there is no other "something" that fits the definition at premise 1. It's illogical to claim an argument is illogical if you choose to omit any of its logical steps. *Thats the fallicy of this argument.* No, it's not the fallacy of the argument, because it's not what the argument says. If it _were_ what the argument says then it _would be_ the fallacy of the argument, but it isn't so it isn't!

[@kieraburgess3431]

My grade has shot up since using your videos thank you so much! PLEASE could you make some videos on Ethics topics (natural law, utilitarianism, situation ethics etc.) for AS level

[@TinOfBeans321]

nice, very nice.

[@moyoofarn5662]

Could you please upload a video on Religious Experience on the AQA Specification of AS Year 1? Thanks

[@emmelinedownie2681]

Brilliant! I finally understand!

[@sambrooksmed9068]

you are my hero prior to my exam lol thanks so much love you

[@monicagatmaitan]

Great video, thank you! Really helped a lot

[@digglyda]

P1. We have defined God as being the greatest without demonstrating such as fact. We have applied a limit to imagination arbitrarily. P2. Something could equally exist in reality and not in the mind. Its existence might be unknown to Humans but our ignorance of it does not preclude its existence. P3. We cannot objectively say that existence is better than non existence. Demonstrate how it is *better* to exist than to not exist.

[@ThePROcrastinator8]

any videos like this for epistemology ? (AQA spec)

[@danielhutchings7278]

Thank you!

[@megantaylor6996]

you are amazing!! thank you so much this helps me with my revision incredibly!!

[@MrMcMillanREvis]

Megan Taylor Thanks for the great comment. Keep up the hard work.

[@teekeeymisha730]

My only (teeny little) criticism is completely unrelated to your splendidly clear explanation of the ontological argument; head back to the beginning of the video where you mention the "teelee"-ological argument. Urgh! "Teleological" is all short vowels in English, whatever our American cousins might think. It's from the Greek "telos" which is spelled with an epsilon (short "e") not an eta (long "ee"). Otherwise an excellent explanation (by which I mean, of course, that's it's almost exactly how I explain it to my pupils!)

[@TheAljossha]

Nice.. very.. systematic.. nice :D

[@Dharmi0]

Where does the mind exist?

[@Manic_Mitch.official]

I am not an atheist but I do not agree with the ontological argument, criticism is welcomed towards my reasoning as It is not fully formed. Anyways we know that God knows all so he is omniscient why does that make him something that nothing greater can be conceived? We're in the bible does it extend on that statement? For me that puts a flaw in the first premise of the argument

[@20july1944]

I agree -- I am a Christian and I think this argument is just dreadful, but I am certainly no expert in the fields of philosophy or logic to evaluate it. The science-based cosmological argument is certainly more persuasive to me, and it doesn't require the expertise that may unlock the merits of this one.

[@marcop3841]

God is not only omniscient(all-knowing), God is also omnipotent(all-powerful). All the qualities of God are the greatest that can be imagined.

[@theprimalfuckhead526]

Can he make a rock he cannot lift?

[@20july1944]

Kenpachi Zaraki God can't contradict or bind His future self. Thus, He can't make a rock He could not lift.

[@theprimalfuckhead526]

So he isn't all powerful

[@safiyyahbintahsan]

So why do we assume that A1 is the false claim, and therefore a2 must be right. Couldn't A2 be the false claim, and God only exist in the mind

[@PGBurgess]

because, it wouldn't be the greatest being in that case. I don't think it is such a stretch to say 'things are greater if the exists'. (which misses a lot of other points offcourse: -what about only existing in reality, but not existing in mind? -or more fundamental: 'things' don't exist in the mind... 'concepts of things' exist in the mind.)

[@Mattsaeus]

2:47 good screenshot

[@saskiyahhhv]

Why don't you screenshot the whole thing at 3:06 instead!!???

[@TranquilOblivion]

Premise 1: God is something-than-which-nothing-more-awful-can-be-thought-of. Premise 2: Things exist either in mind only or in mind & reality. Premise 3: It is more awful to exist both in mind and reality than in mind only. Conclusion: God exists both in mind and reality. Did I just prove the existence of this God?

[@Darksaga28]

No, it doesn’t follow because P3 is not true.

[@MrLonnie800]

great vid but still a workout for my brain :)

[@defenestratefalsehoods]

The biggest problem is you didnt start off by providing proof of a God but with the speculation that there is a god. If this word salad is true then a God must be the answer is not bring us to any truth about a God.

[@gsgidney]

Bro. .. you are in direct need of a pop filter. Your plosives are hitting the mic rather hard

[@ryanfloch6054]

Let's rewrite the argument : "Let's define God as a being that exists, therefore God exists". If you add the property of existence to something, it doesn't make it any truer. Did I miss something ? Because this seems a bit wacky .. (I'm open for debate, not for insults)

[@gummipalle]

...This all assumes that there is something to be said for the contents of human thought.... As if human thought is "special" or somehow "important" or "meaningfull".... Understand that "meaning" is a human term... there is no such thing as meaning outside our own brains... Its just a word we have... The universe has no more "meaning" than it is "amused", or "in pain".... -What humans can concieve of has no bearing on the universe or the exsistance of super-natural parental-figures... No rock cares whether you turn it or not, gravity has no need to be understood.... Whether or not humans can think of something or imagine something is of no consequence outside our own minds, or societies... Something in your mind is BY DEFINITION a part of the "real" world.... The chemical representation of something within our brains is just as "real" as any rock... Its NOT a rock, but it is as real... -So saying that anything exsists only in our mind is pointless.... Our minds are just sub-divisions of the universe... Not apart from it.... Now, whether the god-model in your mind reflects a tangable thing in our environment is the question.... But thinking about god in various ways and constructing arguments purely out of man-made words is useless... You dont describe the universe by assigning arbitrary values and made-up words... In a world where "everything is relative", it only makes sense to assign values in terms of other things... (like that thing wighs 2 kilos, or that thing is 2 meters long...) Talking about the "importance" of god is pointless, because importance is just a word we invented at some point... And when we die, importance dies with us.... I'm sure if there was a god, none of his qualities could be destroyed by man or the extinction of man? RIGHT? Those old clergy-men need to get real... Constructing arguments to prove god.... pffff.....

[@tuttifrootifulify]

This is exactly the problem I have with the ontological argument! The whole basis of Anselm's argument is based upon our own understanding of God. Existence is only a predicate of God if we allow it to be, He is after all, a human concept. 'God' is only all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving because we decide that 'God' is this way. Does any one else see the illogical step in using our own definition of God as a basis for this argument? I know that IF he did exist and IF he had all the characteristics we attribute to him, then the argument would work.... I guess faith is an important part of it.

[@paigegee972]

5:50

[@vhawk1951kl]

any music automatic dislike. music not necessary

[@zujaayy799]

goodluck on your exam tomorrow

[@MartinAlix]

P2. Things exist A) in the mind or B) in the mind and in reality... waddabout C) DON’T EXIST?

[@tyunbv762qpl6]

Brain won't calm down. Sorry (not sorry?)

[@Dodohunter15]

THERE ARE NO BEARS AT THE SOUTH POLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@MrMcMillanREvis]

Dodohunter15 Thanks! You're not the first person to point this out! I will add a note to point out the error