The Ontological Argument is Sound!

[@TaterTheBeloved]

Gavin, idk if you’re gonna see this but I hope you understand how much of a light you are for us Protestants especially when arguing from history, the good you’re doing is amazing for the Gospel and witnessing to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy im so thankful for you.

[@TruthUnites]

thank you for the kind words, so glad my videos are of use you to!

[@Sonic2Chronicles]

Catholic here - you guys are so lucky to have Dr Otlund. I watch all of his videos and appreciate his insights. I find that he can explain things from the Protestant perspective in a very clear and non-combative way. He’s such a pleasure to listen to and I wish we was over here on our side 😂

[@TaterTheBeloved]

@@TruthUnites your church history knowledge has helped me witness to our catholic and orthodox friends and its already helped me convert one to Baptist since I've found your account two days ago, now he's going to witness to his friends with your content. don't be discouraged, you have no idea the impact you have on modern Christianity.

[@Wilkins325]

@@TaterTheBelovedplease stop trying to lead people astray. Feel free to defend Protestantism but I do not appreciate you trying to pick people out of our flock

[@mistertracey1]

​@Idiots08 if you think we aren't on the same side are you really listening Gavin?

[@danielklassen1513]

The gravity of all those big heavy books is pulling Gavin closer and closer to the bookshelf with each video

[@a6255-]

This was so funny lol 😂

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

😂😂

[@ThunderboxMusic]

When you’re a high school junior in the airport watching Gavin talk about when he was a high school junior in the airport…

[@TruthUnites]

haha, cool!

[@whitesoxMLB]

Stayed until the end. I am now requesting my promised heart reaction.

[@TruthUnites]

haha, granted

[@RealAtheology]

This was a fantastic video, Dr. Ortlund! Thank you for putting this together. I appreciated your taking a substantive (yet still accessible) approach to the argument in just over an hour. I'd like to see this type of content more from Christian apologists. Even as an Atheist, I agree that the OA should not be dismissed, and even if it is not sound, it's a fascinating argument not only due to its history but also the wide variety of philosophical topics (modality, existence, semantics, etc) it involves when you investigate it. I fear one reason that it is commonly dismissed and derided by Atheists online is that they often encounter it in the context of when apologists frequently use it as a bludgeon to show Atheism as irrational or foolish. Rarely is the argument presented online in the careful, subtle, and interesting way you've proposed it here, especially as an invitation to a more enchanting metaphysics. I'm hoping this video can contribute to an increased civil dialogue on the argument. In the spirit of such dialogue, I want to offer a brief pushback on behalf of the "fool" who denies the argument's conclusion. One issue here is that Anselm equivocates between the mere concept of God (as a maximally great being) and the positive instantitation of such a concept. What Anselm wants to say is that the fool is conceiving _"not-really-existing being than which nothing greater can be conceived-"_ which is clearly a contradiction in terms of the part of the fool. But as Mackie points out in _The Miracle of Theism_ : _"But the fool can avoid being caught in this trap. His conceiving of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived is just that: it is no more than is involved in his understanding of the key phrase, an understanding which he shares with Anselm and with any other reasonably intelligent person. He does not need to, and presumably does not, include non-existence within this concept. But, separately, he thinks and says that there is no such being, that this concept is not realized or instantiated, whereas Anselm, for example, thinks and says that it is realized and instantiated. The fool's judgement that this concept is not realized does not commit him to reading non-existence back into the content of that concept, which is what would be needed to involve him in incoherence."_ (pg. 52) I think Mackie is correct here in that while Anslem wants to hold the fool as conceiving a reductio through his thinking of a maximally great being, and then building non-existence into the concept, we can take a contrary role as seeing the fool distinguishing between the concept and its relation. This point is actually pressed further in a 2004 paper _Anselm's Equivocation_ by David A. Truncellito, which outlines some of the relevant distinctions: _'That is, it is right to claim that the fact that we have a concept of something does not entail its existence. However, this is not, as is traditionally argued, because the domain of conceivability outstrips the domain of existence, so that there are conceivable but nonexistent entities. Rather, it is because concepts and beings are different in kind. Similarly, existence in the understanding and existence in reality are incommensurable. Thus, it is impossible, in principle, for the ontological argument to be sound."_ Finally, I would like to briefly respond to your argument against parody objections. You take the Plantinga line that there is no such thing as an island than which no greater island can be conceived due to considerations about what such an island would look like in terms of intrinsically great properties, but this is too quick. As Oppy points out in his chapter contribution _The Ontological Argument_ : _"On one hand, greatness for islands involves trading off a whole lot of considerations, including size, ecodiversity, population, and so forth. An island than which no greater can be conceived will not be too large, nor too crowded with palm trees, nor too crowded with people. That there is no intrinsic maximum to size, or number of palm trees, or population provides no reason to suppose that we cannot coherently speculate about islands than which no greater islands can be conceived._ _On the other hand, if that than which no greater can be conceived is to hit intrinsic maxima for every attribute that it has, then those intrinsic maxima must be possibly jointly co-instantiated. But, for example, there is a serious question as to whether something can be both maximally merciful and maximally just. Moreover, there are attributes that do not hit intrinsic maxima that at least some philosophers want to ascribe to that than which no greater can be conceived: for example, that it consists of three persons."_ I think Oppy's points are fairly cogent here in the sense that it seems there can limits to intristic maximums, especially in the context of what a perfect island is meant to be, and that there seems to be tension in terms of what exactly is the greatest being in terms of attributes? Take Divine Simplicity? Is the greatest being one that is divinely simple or not? Is the greatest being timeless, immutable, etc? It seems hard to cash out what exactly intrinsic greatness looks like in terms of God given that there are many different sets of incompatible attributes that it seems some conception of the divine is going to be arbitrary. Anyway, this was a great video. Thanks again for your excellent work, and looking forward to more of your content here in the future!

[@TruthUnites]

thanks for the thoughtful comments!

[@matheusferreira5203]

Hey gavin, i constantly read DesiringGod and saw your article today, just wanted to thank you, i’ve been in a dark season the last year and a half and it has been rough and your article was very heart warming and discipline-inspiring. Thank you

[@TruthUnites]

wonderful to hear that! may the Lord shine his light on you

[@gigahorse1475]

What’s the name of the article?

[@MatthewFearnley]

I’m guessing the article was “Thomas Was Not Judas: Counsel for Those Who Doubt”?

[@matheusferreira5203]

Yes, sorry for the late reply and thank you matthew that is indeed the article

[@EthanTripodi]

I've watched a lot of videos on the ontological argument but this one by far is the most devotional and thought-provoking. Thank you for doing the hard work of a researcher and pastor at the same time Gavin.

[@vex1669]

Agreed. I despise the argument from the bottom of my heart, but this was still the best single video I've seen on it. Gavin isn't preaching, but actually looking at the argument. And he even gave the "best possible island" parody more credence than I would have.

[@dariabrowczenko9682]

Wow, I've watched the whole thing by now and still can't quite comprehend it entirely. However, Gavin, you really awoke that interest in me for such arguments. I can see the beauty, but I will definitely need to think about it for many hours. Thank you for your ministry, you really are a source of God's light to this world.

[@changjsc]

I wrote a paper recently on the Ontological Argument for my university. It gave me a headache, but it was such a pleasant headache that I shared it with my little sister. She did not enjoy the headache as much as I did. But few other papers have made me meditate more on the very being, attributes, and existence of God himself more, except perhaps my paper on the Eternal Generation of the Son. I feel like that headache comes from trying to cram an infinite God into my finite mind. I love it. Watching this video gave me the same pleasurable headache.

[@blusheep2]

What then is your take on "necessity" being a Great Making Property, because that is where I think the weakness is in the argument and why I don't use it in my own reasons for believing in God. When we consider something like omnipotence we understand it on a scale. There is a maximum amount of power one can possess. The same goes for omniscience and a scale of knowledge. It stands to reason that these things have a "greatest," making them Great Making Properties. With necessity their is no scale. Its more of an on off switch. You are either necessary or you are contingent but whether necessity or contingency has any value that makes one greater then the other seems to be a subjective judgment. Why is existing greater then not existing? As I'm writing this, I'm also thinking about it. Is the greatness a measure of the number of contingencies. How many things am I contingent on verse how many things a Maximally Great being would be contingent upon(0 of course)? But then again, why would being contingent upon 1 million things be less great then not being contingent on anything, since in either position one still exists. Then as I think more, contingency seems to be connected to finite which is a degree where infinite would be a greater property by degree. What do you think?

[@InlaudatusPropheta]

​@blusheep2 what's the difference between something that exist necessarily and that which exist by contingency

[@danie-v2o]

@@blusheep2The reason being; by necessarily existing it makes it something descriptive not contingent. That is, it’s part of what it is to be the greatest being. Not something contingent meaning something that is either true or false (exists or not exist). That makes it a property not a predicate. Now to answer your question: if we compare two greatest beings, one that exists necessarily and the other does not. Then the first has one more property than the other. Meaning it’s greater! It has a property that the other lacks. Hope that helps! Btw, I don’t think I work for the reason he mentioned. Even if you make it stronger by saving maximally powerful. It still becomes ambiguous to what is meant by it. But still a great argument for sure!

[@danie-v2o]

@@InlaudatusPropheta The reason being; by necessarily existing it makes it something descriptive not contingent. That is, it’s part of what it is to be the greatest being. Not something contingent meaning something that is either true or false (exists or not exist). That makes it a property not a predicate. That is what it means!

[@blusheep2]

@@danie-v2o I understand what you mean by contingent but maybe not so much what you mean by a "property" and not a "predicate." Like with the property "all-powerful". I don't have that property but I do have a property that equates to a measure of power? So an all powerful being and a less then all powerful being still has the property of 1, right?

[@joeengers]

Who could bring themselves to leave before the end?! So good. I wish more Christians would engage in and with philosophical inquiry. You do a tremendous job with your ministry. Thank you!

[@TruthUnites]

thanks a lot!

[@onlylettersand0to9]

> Who could bring themselves to leave before the end? Anybody who isn't into intellectual masturbation. Listening to this video is like listening to an alchemist talk about how it's obvious that matter is made of earth, fire, water, and air and that you'd have to be irrational to think otherwise At least he finally got around to mentioning that people argue that the idea of "maximal greatness" may not be coherent at the...good griief...65 minute mark. (And yes, I skipped ahead using the chapter markers. Too painful to listen to Orhund ramble and on and on.)

[@kingcimtv4351]

@@onlylettersand0to9”intellectual masturbation” aka I hate using my brain to think

[@onlylettersand0to9]

@@kingcimtv4351 Exactly! I agree that TruthUnites isn't actually thinking,, he's only pretending to.

[@danie-v2o]

@@onlylettersand0to9lol you stay 65 minutes to say that 😂

[@philipmartyn8482]

When I first heard this argument, I thought it was ridiculous. Plantinga humbled me, if he took it seriously, I thought I should consider it. Thank you for this excellent helpful video. You do great work.

[@melvinmokayamagori7743]

Plantinga himself didn't think that the argument can demonstrate a god😅

[@sat25940]

I was blown away by this video when it first released, but man: it ages like a fine wine! I can't think of a greater video on the argument.

[@MattSmithJ]

Gavin, this video us so well articulated. I am novice with philosophy, but you've inspired me to learn more. My faith has been challenged recently, and you've been one of my primary sources if understanding beyond my church. I am so encouraged by your work. God bless you!

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks so much!

[@reillygault]

Thank you so much for this video Gavin! So beutifully explained. It just drives me to worship! What a powerful argument

[@samuelblackmon]

Ontological Argument has always been among my favorite so of course I watched through to the end

[@AlonzoMuncyReligion-pz4yz]

I loved this explanation of the ontological argument. I've always known it was good but was hesitant about using it. Now I think I might use it more.

[@aplatypusguy27]

Finally got around to watching this entire video-- please don't shy away from doing more videos on philosophical topics like this! I found it so helpful and intriguing

[@sarahtravels]

I am trying to work on my apologetics. I appreciate your attempts at helping non scholars like me grasp concepts. I will watch this more than once.

[@gobgaming2725]

Couldn’t have come at a better time! I’ve been praying for understanding, and have stumbled upon the ontological argument through Descartes and now your video. You’re a true blessing Mr Ortlund, thanks!

[@NomosCharis]

@36:52 “There is no such thing as an island than which nothing greater can be thought.” Yes! Thank you for saying it! That’s it, right there. Wonderful video so far.

[@JudahBrownlee]

My big thing is, for the pizza, if the idea is that anything, when cranked up the greatness to max, becomes God, I have an issue. The greatest possible pizza is the fastest pizza that can be eaten, which is not God. Am I missing something

[@NomosCharis]

@@JudahBrownlee For starters, I’d say your measure for the greatest possible pizza is highly questionable. Fastest that can be eaten? I, for one, prefer to eat my food slowly, so I can savor every bite. If I’m eating quickly, I’m either in a hurry for some other reason, so I don’t have time to enjoy my food, or I’m starving, so I’m eating primarily to fill my stomach rather than enjoyment, or the food actually sucks, and I’m just trying to scarf it down as fast as possible so I don’t have to taste the disgusting thing.

[@Hypnotoad206]

What really helps me gain clarity when I watch your videos is to actually hand-write your points with a conceptual map.

[@skipperry63]

It was a slow start but once you got rolling, I knew it was going to be good. Thanks!

[@bradleymarshall5489]

Love your work on Anselm! The great medievals are for Protestants too not just Catholics. Watched the whole video and loved it! Probably going to be my go to for introducing the ontological argument to skeptics

[@MBarberfan4life]

True. A big pet peeve of mine is when certain Christians want to do away with medieval theology. To me, to discard all of church intellectual thought between Augustine and Luther, is absurd.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

@@MBarberfan4life plus arguments can be made that Anselm and Aquinas were more sola scriptura Protestants than post Vatican 2 Catholics

[@MBarberfan4life]

​@@bradleymarshall5489I have heard Akin say that, at one point in the history of Catholicism, the position was closer to prima or Sola scriptura. Obviously, that changed.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

@@MBarberfan4life that developing doctrine you know

[@jtbasener8740]

Staying up late at night to talk about metaphysical philosophy. Sounds like I am not the only maniac in the world. Also, I am very excited to hear about your take on slavery in the Bible, since I have have had that as a heavyweight on my intellect for some time now. Much thanks, as always!

[@MBellerino]

All the way through! Great video. Thanks for your time and effort on this video.

[@f00drox]

No video can be concieved greater than this one... ? In seriousness, I watched to the end and found it very mind bending and interesting. Would love to learn more. Thanks!

[@svenmuller1045]

You have changed my life in how i aproach other people in love and care, i can't wait to meet you when you come to Munich :)

[@TruthUnites]

looking forward to that trip! :)

[@Destroyercon]

I wrote a paper on this about a year ago. I think it is often such a strawman'd argument despite being actually a really solid idea. Another great video Gavin!

[@Jack-h7p1l]

I listened to the end. Glad I did, because (1) the talk had a lot of interesting material, and (2) the end is where where you introduced "value nihilism". For years I've casually thought of myself as a moral and aesthetic nihilist, but without exploring the topics in a lot of detail. If you ever have occasion to give an analytic critique of value nihilism, I for one would find it valuable. (There's still an open door on the Gospel Assurance side.)

[@connorpetrick6572]

Made it to the end! One of my favorite videos of yours yet. Thank you for the time you've spent plumbing the depths of God's greatness and beauty

[@VickersJon]

I think there’s value in the ontological argument too. Thanks for the work you did to put this together. Very much appreciated.

[@benjaminledford6111]

Great work as always Gavin! I've been working through a volume of Anselm's major works over several years, but I'd like to go back and read the Monologion and Prosologion again. One of the great things about philosophical and (to a lesser degree) theological topics is that the ancient thinkers had all the same data to work with as we do, so you have the full benefit of their intellectual gifts applied to the same questions we're asking. It's a treat to read contemporary critics and then to read Anselm and find that he has preemptively addressed all their arguments.

[@Old_Catholic]

Thumbs up. This video was helpful. I currently have no arguments for the existence of God and need something to answer agnostic people.

[@matiasvonbell]

This was beautiful and thoroughly enriching! Thank you!

[@AndreAy1975]

Great video. But I can only appreciate it, because I have studied the Proslogion for 4 days at a theological seminar.

[@Pelinca]

Stayed until the end!!

[@jonathanstensberg]

I’ve always loved the ontological argument precisely because it so concisely displays the ultimate ineffability of God.

[@Iccathy]

So hyped to watched this video when I get the chance

[@robNObeard]

followed you to the end! thought it was very interesting!!

[@jorben934]

My dear brother, Gavin. I love that there are so many different kinds of brothers within the body of Christ. I have an intellectual bent that leaves most people scratching their heads too (too be clear, not out of confusion over the arguments, but probably out of confusion that the Lord would make such a strange creature. I am an INTJ after all. (That was not an endorsement for Meyers-Briggs btw.)) Your channel is a breath of fresh air. I watch your videos to the end. Myself and another Christian brother love to talk about your videos. I hope this has encouraged you. *footnote* I think this is the first time I have seen a parenthetical statement within a parenthetical statement on KZbin.

[@tolleetdialogum4463]

Stayed with you to the end! Absolutely fascinating and stimulating!

[@JohnnyHofmann]

Awesome video, Gavin! It would be great to see a conversation between you and Joe from the Majesty of Reason on this topic.

[@wilprice1467]

I thank God for you, Dr. Ortlund. It will now be summer reading for me to do your book.

[@CrazyUncleSam24]

I often listen to long videos in the background while doing other things. This video held my full attention the whole way through and I couldn't do anything else but pay attention. I would love even more long videos expanding on points you brought up like refuting value nihilism along with the idea that conception leads to possible existence, but that might take your time away from even more great videos. Whatever you work on next, I'm excited to listen!

[@mikemccarthy6406]

Thanks for your work 💯👍🏻🙏🏻

[@qwerty_L]

Excellent video!

[@gabriellogi6981]

Super intressing video! I'm currently studying theology and have hard times getting my head around the ontological argument and why it's sound so this really helped. Thanks man I'm grateful!

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

Because of this, do you agree with Scotus defining God as "the infinite"?

[@coopercobbs2341]

Great video! I've been studying epistemology this year and it's awesome to see such a powerful argument from God made from a purely a priori thread of reasoning! Would love to see a future video on Calvinism

[@elijahwise4588]

I loved this video and would like to see more like it

[@IAmTheSlink]

I stayed to the end, but I'm going to have to revisit this a good deal to really "get" the argument. I always struggled to understand this.

[@sun_buddy]

hi. this video is an answer to prayer. God has been speaking the word "ontology" to me for about three years and this dropped right as i needed it and now i understand what He has been leading me to.

[@Westrwjr]

I can surely see why you left your pastorate, though it may have been difficult for both parties, this new direction is big and bold … and necessary.

[@RicanSamurai]

great video. I definitely struggled to understand this argument prior to watching the video. Thank you for all the time it must have took to prepare this!

[@GregoryJordanStewart]

Watched all the way to the end. Great video! Love your channel. Would you ever consider making a video talking about public revelation? Mostly explaining what it is and comparing / contrasting it with other concepts. I've tried to look up what it means, but I can't find anything that's really useful online.

[@svensvenforkedbeard170]

Hi Gavin, I stayed till the end of the video. I must say sir your calm demeanour and kind voice made this topic a good one to listen to whilst walking the dog. Which people may find odd given how technical it is! It is true nonetheless, much love to a fellow brother in Christ from Cymru (Wales)

[@bretryder8401]

Brilliant stuff, thanks Gavin. It was a combination of the moral argument, the ontological argument and Josh Rasmussen's work on necessary existence that really gave me intellectual permission to open myself up, emotionally and spiritually, to the possibility that Theism was true.

[@davepugh2519]

Try reading the Bible from beginning to end and then see how you feel about the possibility that the Biblical god is real.

[@wtfboom4585]

​@@davepugh2519 to be fair he said theism, not Christianity

[@Jesussaves848]

​@@davepugh2519The Biblical God is real!! Jesus Christ proves that He is the Messiah by fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. (Zechariah 12:10) And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. That was written 500 years before Jesus was born. (Micah 5:2) But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. That was written 700 years before Jesus was born. (Psalm 21:2-6) You have given him his heart's desire and have not withheld the request of his lips. Selah 3 For you meet him with rich blessings; you set a crown of fine gold upon his head. 4 He asked life of you; you gave it to him, length of days forever and ever. 5 His glory is great through your salvation; splendor and majesty you bestow on him. 6 For you make him most blessed forever; you make him glad with the joy of your presence. That was written 1000 years before Jesus was born. (Isaiah 53:9-11) And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. 11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. These prophecies prove that the Lord God is real and He died for your sins. He loves you very much, but He calls you to turn away from your sin and put your faith in Him, and what He has done for you.

[@northeastchristianapologet1133]

YES!! Thank you!

[@theepitomeministry]

45:26 Lord Jesus, give us all the grace to show this kind of restraint in our more polarized time.

[@PiRobot314]

Great video! You presented the ontological argument very well with lots of appreciated nuance. I fully agree that this argument is a great one to practice philosophical reasoning whether one agrees with it or not. As someone who disagrees with this argument, I still find it worth studying to get push back on my own views and develop philosophy further. So know that I appreciate your work and it is because I appreciate it that I want to have dialogue about the ontological argument.

[@PiRobot314]

(I agree with your disagreement of Kant's argument. Existence is a predicate in my mind.) You say, "a lot of these parody arguments don't have anything to do with greatness at all, and thus they are not even sufficiently similar to the ontological argument at all to function as a parody." I admit that parody arguments do not address the argument itself, but I think they help us untangle it a little bit to figure out where I disagree. Let's take the "realicorn" idea for example (Credits to whoever made that video, but I couldn't find who it was. Does anyone know the name of that video or its creator?) I will apply a similar thinking to God. "Real-God" will be the term we use for God if it is the case that God really exists, and "wish-God" will be the term used for God if it is not the case that God really exists. Our concept of "God" necessarily falls into one of these categories (Either real-God or wish-God). Either way, the concept of God is conceivable but only one of the two branches can be conceivable. (If God is wish-God than real-God is not conceivable and vice-versa) Real-God is greater than Wish-God. Agreed. (assuming we are not using the evil god parody) A key premise of Anselm is "if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater." "If it could exist only in thought" suggests that we are talking about wish-God. "Existing in reality as well" suggests real-God. So if it is the case that God exists than obviously the thing "greater than which cannot be understood" is God. However, if it is the case that God does not exist, then our conception of God as wish-God is something than which none greater can be conceived. (Because God in reality is not something which is conceived in this case). Anyways, thank you for making this video. It's a fascinating topic.

[@JamanMosil]

Yup, watched to the end. Thank you very much for this one!! I have to confess, all my previous exposures to the ontological argument have me going "...eh???" and immediately dismissing it because it seems so wonky. Hearing you explain it is the first time it's truly clicked in my brain and I felt as if I was a half-second away from that experiential connection to it. I got goosebumps for a few seconds as my mind resonated with this argument. I am now convinced I need to read up on this more. Any recommendations for a best "first book" on this, or should I simply buy your book on Anselm? I'm tempted!

[@TruthUnites]

I am so sorry my book on Anselm is a bit pricey, but I poured a lot of effort into it so I hope it could be helpful. Let me know if you do read it, what you think. I should say its not JUST about the OA, but really about the entire proslogion. Tyron Goldschmidt's short book could be a good option for something cheaper.

[@JamanMosil]

@@TruthUnites took me a bit but finally got around to your book. Quite something - honestly served almost as both historical primer as well as a devotional book. Superb treatment of Proslogion and well worth the price. posted a rambling review up on Goodreads if you want to know more of my thoughts

[@a.taylor2867]

Finally finished this video! Anselm’s Proslogion was one of the first books of historical theology I ever read and was extremely helpful in pulling me out a period of spiritual darkness and doubt! Thanks for your work on this! Just out of curiosity, I have a vague memory of you putting out something somewhere referencing a desire to do something about Karl Barth and van Til/evangelicals? I might be a minority opinion, but I would totally be down to see that video, if it’s still a possibility! Thanks for all you do!

[@ikemeitz5287]

Hi Gavin! I HIGHLY recommend Bible Talk's episode about Exodus 21. It concerns slavery directly, and might be a helpful resource to you.

[@TruthUnites]

thanks!

[@ikemeitz5287]

@@TruthUnitesAlso, amazing video. I discovered the ontological argument in high school, and it's been an encouragement to me my whole life. It's wonderful to see someone take it even more seriously than I have!

[@njhoepner]

@@TruthUnites I'll wait and see what your arguments are...but to date I've never seen an argument (and I've seen lots of them) that can justify slavery, biblical or otherwise. I also fail to see how a god who could spend a page and a half discussing mildew could not spare one sentence to say "don't buy and sell those made in my image" and thus spare the misery of slavery for hundreds of millions of people (too busy? too afraid to upset his people? didn't realize how bad it would get? just not concerned?). As of right now, I cannot conceive of "good" slavery...if all people are in fact created equal, then slavery is a crime against humanity, no matter who it is done by, and no matter who it is done to...and a god who can't figure that out, and say so, wouldn't deserve to be worshipped anyway (even if such god existed). Let's see if you can change my mind.

[@SprotMungler]

I stayed to the end!

[@MatthewFearnley]

I’m still not convinced, but I enjoyed listening to this. I wonder if parallel arguments can be constructed that avoid some of the pitfalls of the common parodies.

[@kellystone7501]

"He Who Must Not Be Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great.” I did watch until the end ❤

[@claytonweaver2684]

You should debate Alex Malpass. Would a great one to watch

[@williammcenaney1331]

Dr. Ortlund, you might want to read J.N. Findlay's book about Meiong's theory about objects. If I remember what Meaning argued for, it was extreme Platonism. Terrence Parsons wrote a short book about thr metaphysics of fictional objects. What kind of necessity do you mean when you talk about necessary existence? Are you talking about logical necessity, metaphysical necessity, or both?

[@charlesking9120]

I've always liked this argument, but I've yet to have an epiphany concerning it. Thanks for the video. I was unaware of the opposing arguments.

[@tomward5293]

This is wonderful. I need to look into why Aquinas rejected this now

[@iandelossantos]

Skeptics may not be convinced with its conclusion that God exists, through careful scrutiny of the argument it proves that the idea of God is logically coherent. The ontological argument would be the gateway to further investigation. This should make anyone consider God seriously.

[@JH_Phillips]

Please have on Daniel Vecchio to discuss the Ontological Argument at length!! I would love that.

[@JH_Phillips]

Please!

[@turbopro10]

@36:50 >> ... it's really simple: there is no such thing as an island than which nothing greater can be thought; nor is there any finite object to which you can apply the language, than which nothing greater can be thought. Such ideas are logically incoherent. These objections simply fail to grasp ... the absolute uniqueness of god. and how is this not special pleading?

[@harlowcj]

Excellent.

[@iangoodman4633]

That was great. Thanks

[@coffeewleibniz]

Hi, great video. On Kant, I think it would help to read the Jonathan Bennet translation of the Critique of Pure Reason. It seemed pretty understandable. It's in Chapter 3 of the Transcendental Dialectic. I didn't see Kant say "existence is not a predicate in this translation". Rather, Kant says that existence is not a characterizable predicate i.e., it doesnt add anything to our concept of God. Furthermore, since concepts and objects that we have concepts of must be the same, we cannot "build in" the property of necessary existence to our concept because then our concept and the object would be different. Also, Kant distinguishes something that is absolute from something that is intrinsic. Absolute means that something is such that it is unlimited by others so this is a relational concept. Intrinsic means that something is such because of its own nature. There is nothing preventing one from conceiving an absolutely necessary unicorn or island. So Kant is saying that calling something a necessary existent is arbitrary.

[@Msthoro1]

Great video, you are very easy on the eyes by the way. Thanks again

[@ChadGrindstaff]

Interesting topic. I felt one day by intuition that “the most true story must be real.” In that fictions speak truths or indulgences but I’ve never heard a better story than of Christ and by His/its nature keeps getting better with time and revelation. So true that it either had to have happened or must happen. Jesus Christ the Son of God must materialize into humanity just as the flood must have happened or the garden. Like there’s no metaphor for giving birth, it is the metaphor. No prophesy or poetry needed to link us to what is “at hand.” Thanks for what you do. This entire topic sings in me. I don’t know but would suspect this is why conversions have happened with peoples like Nordics and Pacific Islanders… a better and perfect story was told.

[@ChadGrindstaff]

I stayed to the end ha ❤

[@wtfboom4585]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, are you arguing for biblical literalism or that the truth of the stories is independent of their historicity?

[@ChadGrindstaff]

@@wtfboom4585 I don’t quite understand the entire topic lol so I apologize. All I’m really saying is that the truth makes sense and if there could be a perfectly told story it would be forced to be materialized. I understand in part the poetry of the garden and the debate over the flood, but it seems these events were moments that there was no metaphor for. Maybe I’m speaking over myself and you could help me understand better. I’m trying to say I’ve never heard a better more true or perfect story than that of Christ. The more I learn of shared love making the trinity vs no persons of God and withheld love, the incarnation, transfiguration, death resurrection etc, the more true it becomes. Like how we enjoy LotR and Narnia because they speak to these truths. The truth that comes from beyond us and grows in clarity. I’m rambling now. Feel free to help me with this thought.

[@brendangolledge8312]

I have looked at Goedel's formal ontological argument, and here is my objection: he is working with the idea of "positive", and showing that God is maximally positive, but nowhere in the proof does he define what positive actually means. "Positive" as it is used in the proof then has no inherent connection to any other definition of the word. "Positive" as he defines it only means whatever he has defined it to mean within his proof. When I realized this and replaced the word positive with a jibberish word (to remove all prior associations I had to what he was saying), it seemed to me that his proof said something like the following: "that which is internally self-consistent and is necessary in all possible worlds necessarily exists." The word "positive" that he uses then might be better replaced with something like "necessary consistency". It seems like a reasonable conclusion to me, but if it is taken to be a proof of God, then it seems to conceive of God as something like the totality of all internally consistent logic. It doesnt seem to show that God has a will or concsiousness or benevolence. I would think that Goedel's proof would be stronger than Anselm's, given that it was written in formal logic. I didn't see a problem with any of his logical steps, nor could I find (through a google search) any argument by anyone else to refute any of his reasoning. So, I think it is a valid proof, but that it does not actually prove what it set out to prove. I think that Anselm's argument suffers from the same problem that he has nowhere defined a hierarchy of greatness. I dont think you need to be a nihilist to make this argument, you could just point out that there is no universally recognized hierarchy of values. How can you assert that one property is greater than another property without having exhaustively defined the meaning greatness? If you havent defined a measure for something's greatness, then how can you argue that existence (or any other property) is geater than it's negation? Most paradoxes are created by self-referential statements. If you write your terms in formal logic, then it is often possible to show that the definitions of terms used in these paradoxes is self-contradictory, which is why you get a paradox if you follow the premises. I think Anselm's argument might not even rise to this level, since its relevant terms don't seem to be defined well-enough. I am personally convinced by something like the cosmological argument, but I created a form of my own that I like better. It starts with a definition of logic, "Logic consists of the rules of correct inference from assumed premises." Given this definition, it becomes clear that it's impossible to prove anything without assuming something else first. This means that ultimate beginnings are outside the scope of logic. There could be an ultimate beginning (God), but by definition, his existence could not be governed by logic, because by definition, he cannot be derived from anything else. There could be an infinite regression of causes, and then there would be no true beginning. Existence could be circular (like someone going back in time in order to start the big bang), but circular reasoning is not typically considered valid. So, given that something exists at all, there is something outside the scope of human understanding (if humans understand things by logic). Goedel's theorem points at the same idea, in that he proved that there can be no system which is both consistent and complete (this seems to also imply that we can never get to the absolute bottom of things). So far I have been convinced that there is a mystery in existence which could never be uncovered, and that some attributes of the creator god are consistent with existence having an ultimate beginning, but nothing more. At the moment, I find deism very plausible and psychologically useful. It is psychologically useful because if existence was created with a purpose, then we could infer its purpose from its existence, and that would provide an objective framework for values. But that would require a whole other explanation.

[@carolynbillington9018]

deep and needed

[@brudit]

Gavin thank you again! In philosophy it's quite often difficult to my kind of layman to understand what actually is said and meant.. even these discussions really interest me, even the consepts are often so up and above. Doesn't really help that my english isn't quite good enough to go really deep. I love this content, and need to view it second time.. If you see this I ask that you would look at slavery in the Bible more from the perspective of non-israelite slaves. I find a lot harder topic even though there is the sense of social welfare that is easily missed by the modern reader.

[@jerrysweany278]

Wow. Watched the whole thing. I feel much more dumb than when I started. 😮 Thankful for people like you with a gifted intellect.

[@dragon_hendrix570]

I'm going to need a video just breaking down that first quote by Anselm, I understand the premise of the argument, but that quote is cooking my brain.

[@Dandymancan]

Former Protestant here, I think Gavin did a great job and did a lot of justice to this awesome argument.

[@biblicalworldview1]

I am really interested and hoping I can grasp this. I have always struggled to understand one of the premises (#3 I think), so I am hoping this helps. It's something like if God can exist in any possible world, he must exist in this world. I believe you're going to finally get it through to me!

[@TruthUnites]

hope so! let me know how it lands!

[@johnthomas4212]

My personal issue with Anselm’s version is that when he says that existing in reality is better than just existing in mind. If he had said, we reason to the existence of being like God in our mind, and then argue for existence of such being in reality too transcendentally showing that existence of such being is necessary to make sense of our experience and reasoning, that would have much more pull than how he articulates it. Just my take.

[@seanpierce9386]

Consider the following generalization of the argument: 1. Define a function E(x) to be any positive real number a when x exists and 0 otherwise. 2. Define f(x) to be any function with a real number range that is bounded above. 3. Consider the function g(x) = E(x) + f(x). To find its maximum, we can maximize each function individually. 4. E is maximized when x exists. The range of f is bounded above, so f has a maximum. Therefore, by 3, some G maximizes g. 5. Corollary. There exists a G which maximizes f for any bounded metric f. The problematic argument is 3, which assumes that E and f are independent, which they are not. Otherwise, you could come up with any entity with any properties you want and assign it the highest score by a metric of your own design.

[@HearGodsWord]

This is deeply will take 2 or 3 watches to get my head around it.

[@sortehuse]

Good video. I don't really believe that there is such a thing as objective greatness. I also have a some other problems with the argument: 2 - Is existence in reality greater than in understanding alone? The greatest shapes we know of is the euclidean solids and they exist in understanding alone 3 - Is it possible for God to exist in reality? I don't know, but I think you have to show that it's possible. 5, 6, and 7 - it's really hard to define what a being is in reality. We can define a being as a human concept, but if really hard to define what a being is in the real world without running into some kind of paradox. Example: If you look at a newborn puppy and say that's a being. Then you look at the same dog when it's grown up. We understand it as being the same being, but there are very few molecules few from the puppy in that dog. So is it really the same being? God would be greater if God could materialize a glass of lemonade in front of me - so where is my lemonade 🙂

[@transfigured3673]

70 minutes isn't long. Feel free to go longer Gavin. It's good stuff. Don't underestimate your audience's attention span.

[@joel8411]

Is there a particular translation of the proslogion that you would recommend?

[@fabianwittmann8121]

38:10 refers to an actual existing god. An imagined god is not necessarily omnipotent and omniscient. Thoughts tend to be of finite power and of finite knowledge. Therefore the onthological argument is on the same level as the parody arguments.

[@JakeSGray]

17:21 “I think, therefore God is”?

[@MrAwombat]

I really appreciate this video. I've put a bit of effort into understanding the argument, but you're one of the few people I've seen defend the argument. I'm skeptical that there is any way to reason your way to God, at least not all the way. "God chose the foolish things to shame the wise". He seems to remain just outside our grasp.

[@africanig]

I appreciate the confidence we can hold in the ontological argument, knowing that counter-arguments by heavyweights like Kant, are not water-tight. They key seems to be logical soundness and to stand on it with humility

[@adenjones1802]

Ok so I have watched the whole video and as a believer in God, I still have some objections to Anselm's argument. Some of those objections are tasselly admitted in this video. 1. I would be careful to try to pick out any analytic and synthetic propositions made in this argument. This entire argument is an analytic proposition, not because it defines God as existing, but because it defines greatness as being attached to existence when it is not fundamentally necessary to define it that way. If I have a novel in my head and a novel that I write and bring into existence, the novel being in existence does not make it better quality. The novel I have in my head could be better than the novel I actually write. Especially in a Platonist metaphysic that you admit is necessary for the argument. In Platos metaphysics, the conception of the thing may be said to be better than the actual thing which is instantiated in the "real" world which is merely a shadow of the world of forms. Meaning that it could be argued that conceptual things are better than real things. Meaning that the idea of God is better than actual God, the way He actually is. God merely participates in the form of Godness of which he is a particular. Obviously as Christians we must reject these conclusions. 2. It depends on Platonism. Platonism is not the only way we may conceive of value. It does not have to be a hierarchy. The thing you must remember about platonic conceptions of a hierarchy of being, is that there are no ontological gaps. Meaning that this argument would work if such a hierarchy did exist. But there may be an alternative hierarchy of value which does not metaphysically necessitate that there are no gaps. For example, do you think the second greatest thing in the universe exists? Imagine God but not quite as good. Lets say this being exists along side God. According to the platonic hierarchy of being which Platonism and therefore this argument depends on. this second greatest being must exist. And so must the third greatest and the fourth greatest and so on. Obviously at this point it becomes ridiculous. If these lesser beings can leave gaps in the hierarchy, then why not a gap at the top? Its not just that there is a hierarchy of value, but a platonic one. I reject Platonism anyway. It kinda sucks. 3. This basically just collapses into a moral argument. It depends on this idea of greatness having real objective value. This would be an entirely separate discussion as you pointed out. But that just means that the ontological argument cannot in any way stand on its own two feet. It just depends on the moral argument which is flawed in its own right. The only thing Anselm's argument achieves is not that God exists, but that the existence of God is possible. I do agree with Hume that conceptual possibility entails actual possibility. However, possibility does not entail actuality. God is more than possible for us. He is actual. This is not nothing by the way. It proves that arguments that say God logically can't exist are wrong. We can think of him, He can exist. I would like to say that there are still good arguments for Gods actual existence. Just not this one.

[@swagstyle33]

Hey Aden, I was thinking hard about this argument as well and also had some objections (quite different from yours). if you could shuffle through the comments and find mine, I think you'd provide some meaningful insight. BTW I don't feel threatened at all by the counter argument that a real thing isn't greater than an imagined thing. It's quite easy to argue for; sure, not all real things are as good as imagined, but ALL imagined things would be greater if they were also real (assuming they're the exact same as the imagined thing, which is an obvious assumption). the novel you've written is only worse than what you conceptualized because you poorly wrote the novel, and it didn't match what you conceptualized. About Platonism; there is an incomprehensible gap between infinite and finite. for something to be the second greatest thing, it would logically have to be finite, since less than infinite is finite. just as 99.99% of an infinite number would be finite. so the second greatest thing would be nowhere near God. I definitely understand the trickiness in theorizing about such extreme things though. because I could argue against myself and say "infinity minus 1 would be less great than infinity, but it'd still be infinite in a sense" but this just highlights the limitations of the wording we use to describe really abstract concepts. As I say in my comment, I don't even think Anselm's argument successfully asserts that the existence of God is possible. In 5:33 of this video you can see it as a plain presumption. To me, Anselm's argument just outlines a manner of how we WOULD conceptualize God if He DID exist.

[@adenjones1802]

@yle33 "About Platonism; there is an incomprehensible gap between infinite and finite. for something to be the second greatest thing, it would logically have to be finite, since less than infinite is finite. just as 99.99% of an infinite number would be finite" God is comprised of multiple infinites. He is infinitely Good, infinitely powerful, infinitely wise etc. There could be a God like being with one less infinite and still be infinite. "To me, Anselm's argument just outlines a manner of how we WOULD conceptualize God if He DID exist." It depends on if you think that conceptual possibility means actual possibility and then it follows.

[@friendlycrimmy8843]

I watched through till the end, but I may have missed it if you addressed it: the objection that you could apply the same line of reasoning to an evil being is troubling me, how would you handle this? I think I may know the answer (eventually when you pull on the string long enough, you ask “wouldn’t it be greater to be good rather than evil” or something similar to that), but I’d like to hear your thoughts on that one. Thanks Gavin

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! I didn't address it explicitly, but it falls into the category of parody arguments and I think the same response applies: there simply is no such thing as a being than which a worse cannot be thought -- and in that case, it also is not a relevant parody since it does not deal with greatness at all, evil which is privation of good, not a positive thing. Just my take.

[@pphaver871]

@@TruthUnitesI can think of a being being worse. I imagine a serial killer killing 7 people, is he the worst? A serial killer who killed 8 is worse, but we can repeat this infinitely. The worst serial killer must be one that exists correct? He must also have God powers, so that he can actualize his slaughter and truly be the worst. I didn’t watch your video, but I have a passing understanding of the ontological argument, and I feel it can be applied to worse in the same way as great. I don’t see how this can be reconciled

[@jtbasener8740]

I understand how that can be troubling. I have struggled with the very question of proving God's goodness many times myself. I realized at some point, however, that for God to be actually be evil (or even possibly evil), He would be deprived of some level of power. Promises, such as the promise that He will reward those who are faithful to Him and create a new Heaven and a new Earth, would be simply impossible for an evil God to ever assure. A God who is necessarily evil is stripped of the power to ever create anything of worth. My conception of a potentially evil God was infinitely smaller than the conception of a perfectly good God; and, as such, God - a being defined by infinite power - could never possibly be evil. Maybe this is not distinctly a thought regarding the Ontological Argument, but the two are clearly logically coherent. I hope it could be of some help to you. I would love to hear if you have any thoughts of your own.

[@wondergolderneyes]

My friend, out of Cambridge, has just submitted to some journals a paper on the ontological argument- he also thinks the argument works 🤙

[@IRGeamer]

"I don't have a problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept." - anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality

[@williammcenaney1331]

What does "exists in the mind" mean? Is St. Anselm mistaking a concept for the person, place, or thing it signifies?

[@thomasrutledge5941]

I like your comments. They will get people thinking. kzbin.infoFbL_5reUNk4?si=xprMSaXriyajE8sG

[@thomasrutledge5941]

Alan W. Watts (1915-1973) "Alan Watts Lectures | Thought & Things" kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2SQeZ2PmLGWpKc

[@williammcenaney1331]

@rutledge5941 Thank you for the video. But I'm afraid it doesn't answer my question. It doesn't tell me whether St. Anselm mistook an idea for what or. whom he thought about. You can think about Sherlock Holmes and the stories about him. But since he's a fictional character, you can't shake his hand.

[@thomasrutledge5941]

​@@williammcenaney1331Oh, I just reread your first comment. Okay, ty.