The Weirdest Argument for God's Existence

[@shamusson]

Its an argument that works really well if you are a philosophical realist, if you believe that ideas are real. Nominalists have a problem with it because they don't think ideas are real.

[@VoiceTotheEndsOfTheEarth]

"They don't think ideas are real..." Therefore their idea that ideas are not real is not real. Thus ideas are real. Q.E.D.

[@philosopher-2007]

​@@VoiceTotheEndsOfTheEarthHAHA YES. Exactly.

[@goldenalt3166]

That still only means the idea of God is real.

[@VoiceTotheEndsOfTheEarth]

@@goldenalt3166 yes, I proved the statement "they don't think ideas are real" to be false within their own logical framework. They have to assume they are real to make the assertion they made. In other words, their assertion is self-refuting. Now, what you are asking is are they real outside of the mind that conceives of them or more precisely all minds that conceive of them? Are ideas real outside of human conception and even beyond human perception? In other words, are the neurons that sense the outside world, and all the connected networks that process them, including our brains, distorting reality or introducing meaning (connections between sense perceptions) that are not really there? That is the first question that must be addressed.

[@njhoepner]

You'd have to determine what you mean by "real" of course. An idea is in a way real in the mind that comes up with it. It can be real to others in the sense that they recognize the idea. It is long, long way from there to the existence of a being, a person. That is a whole different thing. You, or anyone, having the idea of god demonstrates precisely nothing regarding the existence of such a being...and this, ultimately, is why the ontological argument fails. It is an attempted mental slight-of-hand, switching the meaning of existence of an idea to existence of a being in the hopes the listener won't notice the trick.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

This is my favorite argument for God, yet it’s the hardest to understand for people.

[@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics]

Same! 💯

[@newglof9558]

Isn't it just a rehash of Aquinas fourth way, in a sense?

[@williamthrasher7961]

This is why you do not understand anything about the idea of god.

[@w12ath040211]

It is the maximally fallible argument.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

This is Saint Anselm's ontological argument, Saint Thomas just recorded it.

[@MultiJpad]

I had a super great pizza once when i was a kid, it was in the south Bronx and it cost 50 cents.

[@LL-bl8hd]

Checkmate atheists ♟️😏

[@Someone-ti1cj]

Sure you did

[@jonathankey6444]

Good for you man

[@Primordial_Synapse]

So sometime during the 1970s? I admire your bravery for navigating what was then a post-apocalyptic hellscape.

[@LL-bl8hd]

@@MultiJpad Checkmate, atheists ♟️😏

[@PuzzlesC4M]

Maximally great pizzas and flying spaghetti monsters. I gather atheists love Italian food!

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

Rafferty's Pizza in MN, an obvious proof of the power of the ontological argument. :D

[@blackswan7568]

In all fairness, who doesn't?

[@asamtaviajando8388]

I started from the ontological, then the moral argument hit me hard and I never turned back.

[@JacobiCoquat]

The ontological argument is circular reasoning and moral argument doesn’t make sense moral argument is based on the subjective was of humans or god which. Humans have better morals.

[@Mantorok]

The moral argument is question begging.

[@Emma-hg6ng]

​@@Mantorokit's not question begging, it's proving a philosophical gap in atheistic reasoning. If you think everything is subjective then clinging onto certain moral views is just a delusion

[@asamtaviajando8388]

@@Mantorok your very existence is question begging.

[@asamtaviajando8388]

@@JacobiCoquat it’s not. You have to understand it better. It’s no circular, tho it seems that way. The moral argument is the one that makes MOST sense. Try more.

[@jedisilvr]

6:27 That's Ludwig Wittgenstein, not Norman Malcolm.

[@henrytep8884]

lol i googled it and found out how easy it was to make that error. Norman Malcolm made a book about Wittgenstein and the headshot is from that album

[@Simon_Kidd]

​@@henrytep8884 Yes, Malcolm was a student and friend of Wittgenstein's, and wrote a memoir of their time together.

[@dpfonten1976]

Yep

[@dpfonten1976]

And Jacobi for Kant

[@John-ot7si]

Wittgenstein linguistics

[@chuckgaydos5387]

The best possible pizza would have the best number of toppings, not necessarily the most toppings. Adding another topping to the best possible pizza would not make a better pizza.

[@mrgod679]

That’s irrational because quantity and quality can make the pizza better.. You can say that was the best possible pizza I ever ate, but now it’s gone. If I had more pizza, it would be even better because I would be more satiated.

[@chuckgaydos5387]

@@mrgod679 It wouldn't be a better pizza. It would be another pizza.

[@mrgod679]

@@chuckgaydos5387 a larger pizza would make it a better pizza

[@chuckgaydos5387]

Not if it's already the best possible size

[@mrgod679]

@@chuckgaydos5387 Touché!

[@sebastijan5894]

I’m Catholic and believe with all my mind and heart, but one area where I struggle to come up with arguments and explanations is proving that Jesus is the Son of that omnipotent everlasting God (and Him being One with Him too of course) and that it is that God who Jesus revealed in his earthly ministry. I’m convinced by arguments for existence of God (who is omnipotent, uncreated etc.) as well as that Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament and that he rose from the dead and performed all the miracles, but bridging these two concepts can be a challenge. I hope I’m making sense.

[@JTConnelly9899]

To prove this, you would first have to somehow prove that the God of Israel is the God of the universe, and not just another God as other pantheons try to make Him out to be. You can do this with the foundation that polytheism from any of the ancient pantheons doesn't make sense, and basically leading to a logic where only a Good God that wouldn't go against your natural morality would have to be what exists, which if you compare the other Monotheist Gods to YHWH (Baal or Molak as an OT example, Allah for a modern example), then it comes to reason that if there is a God that is truly good, it is only the God of Israel. From there, to connect Jesus to this God as the Messiah, we already have a foundation in the OT when we establish that the God of Israel is the God of the universe, so we give the argument for Jesus as the Messiah-the prophesies of the Messiah coming that Jesus fulfills to a T (Isaiah, Isaiah 53 most specifically, also some of the Psalms, Daniel, etc.), Jesus prophcizing and these prophesies coming true, the letter to the Hebrews, the Gospels themselves, basically the usual connection we would have to make to prove Jesus as Messiah to a modern day Jew that believes in a coming Messiah. Hope this helps!

[@JezuesChavez]

At the end of John,. it states that Jesus did so many miracles, and they wrote them into a book, to induce you to convert to the faith. If Jesus doing the miracles wasn't enough to convince living people that God was before them, why should some stories or a church made by men do it?

[@llla_german_ewoklll6413]

Early christians emphasized the feeding of the 5000 not because they thought it was just a good story, but because it showed that Jesus had full power over creation which makes him God. Read hebrews 1 if you want to hear Jesus explicitly called God by the Father. John 1 also is very clear that Jesus is distinct from God the Father, but is also the same in nature with the Father. Jesus also is called “son of God” by the centurion in Mark 15:39.

[@Furetto126]

​@@JezuesChavezI guess you don't believe that history happened before you were born then.

[@joshuahaddow3194]

There are a lot of good arguments for the resurrection that's what you need to look at now.

[@edwardbell9795]

The picture you posted of Norman Malcolm is actually of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Thank God for St Thomas Aquinas. I've struggled for decades with the ontological argument, despite an academic background in philosophy and theology. Good on you for trying to explain it.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@edwardbell9795 The ontological argument is sophistry and circular reasoning. I hate it. The moral arguments hold sway with me, but empirical arguments are the best: people have seen Jesus, the BVM, miracles have demonstrably occurred. Christianity is full of supernatural phenomena that I believe because I have seen it or heard testimonies from reliable sources.

[@michellelaudet5363]

@@sliglusamelius8578 😅🤣

[@michellelaudet5363]

I am laughing because how you explained your position struck me as funny. I agree with your comment's second half, the first part made me laugh because of course, based on your second part of the comment, the ontological argument would seem simplistic. Not sure how you see it as circular, but that is your vision. Thank you for making me truly giggle, I needed it after the eyeballing atheists insisting how much smarter than everyone else they believe themselves to be... Now this was truly circular!!😉😅

[@michellelaudet5363]

* eye rolling at the not eyeballing, unhelpful spellchecker.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@michellelaudet5363 Oh, ok thanks!

[@hailholyqueen]

It's great that there are people who can think and speak about the greatest mysteries of the universe.

[@timorean320]

The older I get, the more I ponder this.

[@zgjfinance2796]

Speaking doesn’t mean you’re saying anything lol

[@lukelaterza2247]

Uhh, that’s called an astrophysicist… not this guy.

[@portalingstudiosgaming7705]

​@@lukelaterza2247 Exactly!

[@alphaecho3875]

Is "supernatural" mystery of the universe? If supernatural is true

[@jamestandy8594]

This was a really good explanation. I've always shied away from this argument, mainly because I don't understand it, and because it seems strange to reason from conceptual existence to actual existence. I think you did a good job breaking down my hesitation by showing the edges of the argument - "What the modal ontological argument shows is that it is EITHER impossible for God to exist OR it is impossible for God not to exist." To me it seems like other arguments outside the ontological argument are necessary to tip the scales and give it force. Related to the point you made at the end about how different arguments "click" for different people, I can also see how this argument might resonate with someone who is moving from a casual, cartoony view of God into a deeper understanding of perfect being theology, exploring what it means for God to be the greatest being. I just read Matthew Barrett's "None Greater" which is a pretty good introduction to this (drawing from Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas).

[@grantc9012]

What’s strange is I intuitively conceived this argument on my own as a child without the language to articulate it. Needless to say it’s my favorite one.

[@mrgod679]

That’s funny, I intuitively conceived as a child the argument that God was made up to explain things that early humans had no answers to, and then the first conman met the first sucker! 😮 Now that person had control over all who believed them! “I’m not telling you to do anything God other gods are. I’m just relaying what knowledge they have bestowed upon me because I guess they think I’m special 😊 God is make believe and Jesus is myth! 😂

[@ART224]

Trent, I’ve waited for years for you to make a video on the ontological argument. This is my favorite argument for God. Thank you for this video.

[@nickt2559]

Instead of defining God as the "greatest conceivable being," let's define God as a being whose existence is necessary. This means that God cannot not exist, much like how a triangle cannot have more than three sides. This is a core concept in many theological traditions.

[@jm329]

It’s a bad one.

[@someoneonyoutube8622]

You can also use the idea of a maximally greatest god killer of which may or may not be conceived.

[@JohnHenrysaysHi]

16:27 1 Corinthians 9:21-27 To those outside the law I became like one outside the law-though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ-to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it. Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win. Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one.Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing. No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. Thank you, Trent! Prayed for you, your family, and everyone here at Mass yesterday, where we celebrated the Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, and still praying for you in my Rosary. Hope you and yours have a light-filled peaceful joyful blessed Thanksgiving week.

[@gigachink]

6:28 proof of the non-existence of proof-readers in the trent's editing team

[@llla_german_ewoklll6413]

philospher

[@inadibusu]

to be fair that is really easy to miss, espicially with the way human reading works

[@susand3668]

@@inadibusu Many editors now skip human proof-readers (who cost money), relying on spell-check. You can see this in a lot of books today.

[@n.a.odessa3939]

It's also a photo of the wrong person I think? 😅

[@jokaiitsfire]

@@n.a.odessa3939Yes. The person on the photo is Ludwig Wittgenstein.

[@hpdown6398]

6:27 that’s Wittgenstein, whom Malcolm wrote a book on

[@shellbackbeau7021]

The maximally great pizza does exist. It is the Hawaiian BBQ chicken pizza by papa John's.

[@RabidLeech1]

“ChEcKmAtE tHeIsTs”🤓☝️

[@itaxevasixn8808]

Okay well fair enough. That is a truly tasty treat.

[@xbox360hurley4]

In my denomination the maximally great pizza is a tostinos party pizza because of how reliable they are 🙏

[@CYRUs-e5u]

​@@xbox360hurley4 is the Pizza all loving 😋😋?

[@JoeyG-o8r]

Christ forgive Him for he knows not what he says and is clearly not from New York.

[@shachar731945]

4:11 maximally great pizza is an incoherent idea and a maximally great being is? Sounds like special pleading to me

[@ThatOneCalvinist]

The reason is because by definition, a pizza has limitations, for example it cannot be sentient. When those limitations are exceeded, it is no longer a pizza. However, God by definition has no limitations. So if your pizza is maximally great, it's not a pizza anymore, it's God.

[@shachar731945]

@ThatOneCalvinist thanks for answering :) you are conflating a being with god (the words). The argument goes maximally great being, which has limitations because the only beings we know of have limitations just as pizza. The argument itself is also a lot of word play, you can't define something into existence, the fact that I define something is being the "greatest there is" doesn't make it exist unless you have existence as part of greatness which is just subjective and therefore dismisses the point entirely

[@ThatOneCalvinist]

@@shachar731945 You're welcome. You say there is a lot of wordplay, but words are just used to describe what is already there. Also, existence as part of greatness is not subjective, we know this because things that exist can alter things that do not but things that do not cannot alter things that do exist. Greatness is just the word used to describe the essence of something being "the most", so whatever you call it the core argument remains the same: Since it is possible for the greatest possible thing to exist, it must exist as that is greater than not existing, so if it didn't exist then it wouldn't be the greatest possible thing, but it is, so therefore the only logical conclusion to the contradiction is that it does exist.

[@shachar731945]

@@ThatOneCalvinist I'd like to stick on the point of existence being a part of greatness. First of all, there are many things that do not exist but have the capacity to alter things that do exist. For example, in math imaginary numbers are used widely to model physics, economy and more. These models are very useful in the real world and without them you wouldn't have a lot of inventions that exist today. Meaning, things that do not exist alter things that do exist. Secondly, you claim that because of the "alteration" capacity of existing things (which I think I showed is not exist but lets stay with it for this point), these existing things are greater. The point is you didn't remove the subjectivity aspect. Who decided that the ability to alter things is "great" or "better", if you have a value scale you have to ask yourself who decided on it and what makes it true for everyone always.

[@ThatOneCalvinist]

@@shachar731945 Imaginary numbers are no different than real numbers, they are just called different things. Also, they do not directly alter the red world, it is how we convert them into real models that affects the real world. There are no fictional concepts that directly affect the real world without assistance from something in the real world. However, there are many things in the real world that directly affect fictional things, for example our brains that come up with ideas. As for your second point, the person who decided the it is greater is no one, it's an objective fact just as it is an objective fact that mass creates gravity. Greatness is not always a subjective feeling about how good something is, but also a measurement of power in the real world. When used in that context, like in the ontological argument, it is an objective fact that since real things affect the real world more than fictional things, they are greater as greatness measures how much things affect the real world.

[@speedingatheist]

An argument can NEVER prove a god. It can only convince a believer to feel good about his unjustified belief. How would you get from proving god's existence to proving your specific god's existence out of thousands of man-made gods? Luck? Confirmation bias it is.

[@nathanbenoit6922]

To do that you'd have to have a separate line of evidence, as you're trying to prove a different claim. If it's Christianity you're looking at the evidence for, it would have to be the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Good news is, when you look into that you'll find the historical evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus really was God, meaning we now have the answer to "who's God is the real God?"

[@speedingatheist]

@@nathanbenoit6922 Even if we ignore your lack of understanding what historical evidence IS, one or 200 preachers named Jesus actually existing is NO evidence for them being supernatural. Again, you're free to believe, believe to know and believe to have evidence. In the real world, it's called gullibility.

[@nathanbenoit6922]

@speedingatheist the evidence of the supernatural lies in his resurrection. All the evidence available to us, gives us reason to believe beyond reasonable doubt that he really did rise from the dead. (Especially given that no other plausible scenario has ever been given on what happened to his body, and why they could never find it). Remember, without the resurrection, the rest of Christianity becomes useless

[@Simrealism]

How is atheism impossible? It just means they don't believe. Seems pretty possible to me. But maybe it's because I'm a Jew and therefore quite adept at reasoning.

[@MyContext]

The concept great is an appeal to value and is thus a purely cognitive notion. Thus, such an appeal is pragmatically an appeal to imagination and thus worthless as a claim about reality.

[@alistairkentucky-david9344]

"Normal Malcolm" shows a picture of Wittgenstein

[@mountbrocken]

I'm assuming he was employing principles of Wittgensteinian linguistics.

[@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913]

My problem with the ontological argument is that terms like “greatest” or “most perfect” beg the question, greatest or most perfect for whom? In other words, terms that make qualitative judgements always imply a given perspective. Of course, one can say greatest or most perfect from God’s perspective, but that seems like a circular argument to me. The version of the ontology argument that I gravitate towards is to define God as the only being that is self-existent. Everything that exists depends upon other things for its existence. There must be, however, that which exists by virtue of itself. This is similar to how Plotinus, Ibn Sina, Ibn Arabi, and even Thomas Aquinas viewed God.

[@supremesage6512]

An idea of god is not "the perfect idea". It's a regular idea of "the perfect being". And just as any other regular idea, it has nothing to do with the reality. It is entirely contained within your brain. And even if it was "the perfect idea" and "the perfect idea is the one that is true", what does it mean for an idea to be true? An idea is not some kind of alternative/metaphysical universe in your head, it's just a bunch of neurons that store information across your brain. If you imagine a chair, you don't create a metaphysical char in your metaphysical universe, you just fire a bunch of neurons that search your brain for a chair memories and all that is related to is, then process that information an comes to the conclusion of "ok, I imagined a chair". So when you have those "perfect" thoughts about "the perfect being", how exactly a bunch of neural signals translate into a real thing? And which idea of god is the perfect one? Because everybody have slightly different ideas of god and they can't all be perfect, right? If you think of ideas as metaphysical objects, you may imagine that multiple people may think about the same thing, and so there may be "that one perfect idea" which we're all thinking about, but it's just not how brains work. Also there can't be "perfect idea" because "perfection" does not apply to such complex objects, because the word "perfect" does not refer to an objective and testable thing but to an *opinion* that "this thing is as good as it can be and I refuse/can't think that it can possibly be better". So when you say "The idea of a perfect being is perfect and idea that is true is better than one that is false, therefore god." you basically say "My personal idea (the neurons) of god (specifically the christian one, who did all those genocides and sends people to eternal torture in hell) is so good, I personally refuse to believe that there can be anything better, BUT it would still be better (in my subjective opinion) if it (the idea) (the neurons in my brain) was coincidentally referring to a real being somewhere in or outside our universe. Therefore it does." I first thought I messed up somewhere but it really seems to not make any sense if you phrase it that way. Unless you say that apart from "opinion" perfection there is also an "objective" perfection which is determined by god. And objectively, your personal idea of a christian god is the perfect one and is also true, but for that you must first prove that god exists. And that's about how every god argument ends like. If god exists than this argument proves that he does. If not then it doesn't.

[@philyra8991]

I am Christian and I mostly agree with you. I don't think you can prove anything with this type of argument, or with arguments like this one. In fact I don't think anyone has yet proved that God exists. I just think it could be done.

[@gingerherringtonSTMM]

I hope that you have a very blessed day, too!

[@RedeemedMusicanOfGod]

“If your pizza becomes great enough, it will become God.” -Richard Ackerman (Redeemed Zoomer) Edit: Apparently this has started a war.

[@giuseppemoscato8328]

Bruh

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

That's what idol-making boils down to isn't it?

[@fallenkingdom-zd8xh]

I remember that!

[@newglof9558]

Unsurprising a Protestant would hold to univocal being

[@dattebayano]

​@@newglof9558 you don't get it.

[@lucaslovesyouiii]

ah yes the ONTOLOGICAL case for god. Every theists favorite argument when they want to sound intellectual

[@rahulpaul147]

The problems with modal ontological argument is that A maximally great being is defined as one existing in all possible worlds so you can never say that if it exists in one possible world it exists in all possible worlds because it can never actually exist in only one possible world So what the argument is basically saying is that if a a maximally great being exists then a maximally great being exist.

[@philosopher-2007]

Youre missing a key point. Saying that the MGB can exist in one possible world does NOT mean that it can ONLY exist in that world. The idea is that a MGB would, by definition, exist in at least one possible world is not implying that it is possible for it to only exist in that world. A MGB would need to, by definition, exist in all possible worlds. Therefore, if we say that it is even possible for a MGB to exist in any possible world (without implying that that world would be the only world it exists in) then it exists in all possible worlds, because existing in all possible worlds is greater than only existing in less than all the possible worlds.

[@rahulpaul147]

@philosopher-2007 It is not a possibility for MGB to exist in some possible world because an MGB is defined as a being that exists in all possible worlds so if you ask the question is MGB possible in some possible world then to answer that question we need to ask if MGB exists in the real world if the answer is not then MGB is not possible in any other world but if the answer is yes then MGB is possible in all other worlds That's why the argument boils down to a tautology saying that MGB exists if MGB exists

[@philosopher-2007]

@@rahulpaul147 Maybe I need to be clearer, when we ask "is it possible for a MGB to exist in some possible worlds?" we are REALLY asking "is it possible for a MGB to exit in AT LEAST some possible worlds?"

[@rahulpaul147]

@@philosopher-2007 MGB is defined as a being that exists in all possible worlds so it either exist in all possible worlds or none so it doesn't make sense to ask if MGB exists in some possible world because of how MGB is defined we are essentially asking if a being defined to exist only if it exists in all possible worlds can possibly exist in some possible world

[@philosopher-2007]

@@rahulpaul147 The whole point of modal logic is to see if this being can exist at all. It is perfectly fine, and epistemically in line with modal logic, to ask if this being "can exist in AT LEAST one possible world". I don't see the problem.

[@MouseQueso]

"These ideas are incoherent" good thing to keep in mind in general in this field

[@junkmail8883]

He meant "incoherent" in the sense of being hard to easily understand unless you're someone who already thinks in more abstract terms. He didn't mean "incoherent" as in "total nonsense".

[@paulmilligan3007]

I've visited Anselm's birthplace in Aosta, Canterbury - where he was archbishop and St Anselm's parish in Tooting, London. In none of these places was his name pronounced Ahnselm.

[@scopilio13]

how was it pronounced?

[@spocktiberius2456]

Another point I’d like to make on this topic is that the reality we exist in is one of opposites. Meaning, that for every concept we can conceive, there exists it’s opposite. If this is accepted as true, then one can expect that if there are those who believe in the existence of God, there will also be at some point and at some time, those who will hold the opposite view. It is what it is.

[@HotManJonah]

As soon as I saw the title I immediately knew this episode was going to be about the Ontological argument lol

[@njhoepner]

I clicked on it because I hoped for once the apologists had come up with something new. Running into the ontological argument yet again - which I think clearly does not work at all - was something of a disappointment.

[@portalingstudiosgaming7705]

​@@njhoepner Yeah, I was confused too, because I saw the preview first, so I waited for demonstration of mistakes in the argument, but the only mistakes I saw were in authors words.

[@alexdre]

The axiom of the argument is something like: “It is not possible to imagine something greater than God.”

[@СергейМакеев-ж2н]

More like "the set of beings that are possible to imagine *has* a uniquely defined maximum"

[@stevengull6703]

Easy imagine God but he doesn't care about free will. Now I have imagined a God more powerful since he is no longer restricted by free will. And since I imagined it, I thought it, therefore since this God can exist he does exist now worship my God.

[@hoid8069]

I think a major barrier for some to accept this argument is that our culture has discarded the idea of objective goodness. Without objective goodness, the idea of a maximally great being is incoherent.

[@leonardoherreraornelas4667]

The major barrier to accept this argument is that it contains a fallacy in it. It is a huge “asking for the principle” fallacy. And I say it as a believer. There are orher ways to argument in favor of objective goodness. Take a look at Thomas Aquinas argument who in fact wrote against this ontological fallacy.

[@junkmail8883]

Good point

[@jodistanleyjs]

Unlikely, but even if the argument is accepted, I think you'll find most nonbelievers are happy to accept there could be some max great creator (atheists who do not believe in specific theistic g0ds can be indistinguishable from deists). The issue is how you get from this to the bible and Christianity (or indeed any other religion) being true?

[@jeremiahgranatowski1400]

Trent, I love you brother. We may not be part of the same denomination but I thank God for you and the work you do. May God bestow many more blessings upon your life.

[@fluffysheap]

The main problem with the Anselm style ontological argument is that "maximally great" is not a coherent concept except in trivial cases. The second problem is that "existence is a necessary property of a maximally great being" is not self evident and, probably, is not actually true. Imagine the maximally great car. A great car should be easy to drive and park. A great car should also carry a lot of people and their stuff. The first one is like a subcompact, the second is more like a van, or a bus. Of course I can imagine a car that can change shape or otherwise accommodate both needs. But now it doesn't exist. The maximally great pizza is similar. It tastes amazing. But a pizza is made to be eaten, and once I eat it, it doesn't exist.

[@wms72]

I can't understand how you think existence is not necessary to being.

[@stephengalanis]

@@wms72 google "Kant existence predicate" Anselm's mistake is in treating existence like it's an add-on trait. Pretty much no one buys that. To have existence is for something to be itself. Question: If we're comparing two nearly identical things, but one has "necessary existence" in addition to all the shared traits, are we really comparing two things? Most people would answer "no". Why? Because surely the thing that lacks existence, lacks all other properties too. It doesn't exist. So it doesn't seem like existence is a great making property like being the biggest or smallest or fastest or slowest. If something exists, it's simply itself. There's no existence spectrum.

[@wms72]

@stephengalanis I understand being as existence.

[@stephengalanis]

@@wms72 Then you intuitively disagree with Anselm. I apologise if I misread. The internet is like that. If I say to you "think of the greatest possible being", and by definition you already include existence in that, then it's no longer a valid move if I say "a-ha, but now let's think of an ever greater being that also has existence". It seems that we'll have to apply existence to both beings the whole time (in which case the argument breaks down), or never apply existence to either being as they are mere ideas in a thought experiment (in which case it still breaks down). Anselm explicitly treats existence like it can be added and substracted from a being, but most people would say that's wrong, that he's misunderstood the type of thing existence is. It can't be used in that predicate, great-making way. Can we really go from a lesser being to a greater being by adding "existence"? That's the core of his argument, and I think it's a sleight of hand. It's not treating all terms equally throughout. An equivocation fallacy.

[@Tinesthia]

“Once I eat it, it doesn’t exist.” You simply lack imagination as it will always regenerate and exist whenever you want it, because it is the greatest possible. Also, technically a being that does not exist but creates a universe would be greater than a being that does exist and creates a universe. Logically untenable, but a greatest possible being need not necessarily adhere to laws of logic as we understand them.

[@floriansalihovic3697]

I still don’t know if this is satire or not?

[@James-ll3jb]

Cute. Grow up.

[@floriansalihovic3697]

@ 😂

[@JonathanRedden-wh6un]

One of the best presentations of the ontological argument, but with my intelligence or lack of it, I am still struggling.

[@RonnieRivera-v9p]

Struggling with understanding the ontological argument or believing in the existence of God?

[@ShaneHill-mu4yi]

It's the sort of thing which is easy to make fun of as a 20 snd sound bite but which makes more and more sense after contemplation.

[@vbilgutay1]

Not only can the same logic be used to argue that God does not exist (as Trent pointed out), but it can also be used to argue that an evil God exists. The word "greater" is an adjective which highlights the scale of something/someone, however, it does not necessarily mean that this thing is moral. For example one can say: Lucifer is the greatest demon. So when the argument states "That which no greater can be conceived", this can be equally used to justify the existence of a benevolent or malevolent God.

[@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics]

The Ontological Argument is my favorite! ☺️

[@danielmb01]

It proves nothing, as usual.

[@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics]

@DanieldeMaio-or8fl 🍕

[@brendanbutler1238]

If that which there can be nothing greater than, exists in the mind alone, then it isn't that which there can be nothing greater than. Therefore it isn't impossible for a maximally great being that exists in the mind and reality to be greater than it. Therefore there is no contradiction that has to be resolved by God being real.

[@Enlightened_Aura]

If we want to make the perfect island or pizza, and the objection is that we could always make it more perfect by adding one more thing, that’s false. Very easy to use basic mathematics to calculate the perfect number and density and size of everything.

[@ralphreinert]

"Very easy to use basic mathematics to calculate the perfect number and density and size of everything." I'm being slightly off topic here, but I have never understood why "positive integers that are equal to the sum of its positive integral factors, including 1 but excluding itself" are called "perfect" numbers. Off hand, I would think that a number whose positive integral factors add up to a number GREATER than itself would be a more ideal number than one that only added up to itself. Perhaps a "perfect" number should be one whose positive integral factors add up to infinity. I understand that infinity is not a number and cannot be reached, but much the same can be said of perfection. But I am rambling. Please ignore me. 🙃

[@QuadraticSquared]

In a game of "ball and cups", it's easier to reason that balls can't teleport between the cups on the table than it is to explain how every specific magician performed their trick. In the same way, we can dismiss the possibility of ontological arguments without engaging in any particular syllogism. We know that analytic premises can't transform themselves into synthetic premises. If we're clear on that concept from Kant, the game is over.

[@billcook4768]

@@QuadraticSquared if I can imagine balls capable of teleporting, does that mean they exist?

[@marinusswanepoel1825]

10:45 Thank you so much for dealing with this. It is so rare to see people invert with the inverse parody argument

[@jamessteidl5260]

Excellent! It was on my list to revisit the modal argument.

[@peterattenborough5324]

It's surprising how similar Norman Malcolm was to Ludwig Wittgenstein. I wonder if they were brothers.

[@edwardbell9795]

Haha

[@MrAwombat]

This might have been the best video on the ontological argument I've seen, and ive seen quite a few. Well done Trent!

[@monke12355]

You kind of look like Garfield's owner

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@monke12355 lolol I’ve always thought that

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

That was one of the weirdest arguments because it depended utterly on the existence of the presumed unlimited power of the human imagination!

[@zgjfinance2796]

The gymnastics be wild

[@junkmail8883]

Which premise do you specifically object to?

[@bhavjotsingh3190]

​@@junkmail8883All of it is bs. You just sit here and assert all day. "There must exist a necessary maximally great being God" is an assertion. It proves nothing. Instead of bending over backwards you can just admit that you don't know because you clearly don't.

[@greenbird679]

​@@bhavjotsingh3190 Actually your comment is bs. You did not give answer to the question he asked, instead resorted to name calling. lol . Stupidity is amazing.

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

I can think of something greater than can be conceived about God: the location or place where this God is situated, because he isn't situated within nothing surely, call it the cosmos or whatever, but theists will use a special pleading argument usually to get around this. My view is that all God beliefs necessarily arose out of a lack of understanding about how the world functions, usually in times long ago before we had good or better reasoning skills based on evidence and certainly not faith.

[@joshuaparsons887]

God isn't located in any situation or place (as he is prior to all locations) but is energetically present in all situations and places. God is necessarily real due to the transcendental argument, in that there is no way to justify the preconditions for knowledge (Knower, Known and method of Knowing) unless God exists. If we say knowledge is impossible, we refute ourselves, and a God necessarily exists, and so your theory is incorrect.

[@ProjectMysticApostolate]

All this talk of pizza got me hungry

[@evanvansickle3779]

By that same logic, because it is “possible,” a second-greatest being necessarily exists (or it wouldn’t be second greatest), and a third, and a fourth, and a fifth… When quantifying greatness, “existence” would be the last property to go. So, there would be innumerable beings with ALL the varying great-making properties.

[@AlamarianJ]

This has the same problem as the “greatest possible island” objection. If the second greatest possible being does not possess every possible great making property, we could always conceive of it possessing just a little more of those powers, thus making it incoherent just like a “greatest possible pizza.” If it does possess those powers, it is identical to the greatest possible being and not actually the second greatest.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

No, its doesn't necessarily follow that given the same logic, a second-greatest being must necessarily exist. for it to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist, uncontigent, to all other things, lacking potential. Second greatest beings would have potential to existence and therefore can possibily not exist.

[@jdotoz]

​@@AlamarianJ Except Christians don't agree. The Father is not the Son is not the Spirit, but they are equally great. So it would seem that equal greatness does not imply equal identity.

[@Tinesthia]

@@AlamarianJ And the objection to the greatest possible pizza has a worse problem. Why arbitrarily choose the adjective “greatest possible?” Why not “tastiest possible?” The tastiest possible pizza would be tastier if it exists all possible mouths rather than only in concept. No amount of defining something as having the attributes of existing actually means it exists. Pure question begging. The conclusion is deceptively hidden in the premise.

[@njhoepner]

@@AlamarianJ The objection to the "greatest possible island" fails. Who is to say what makes an island greater? Who is to say what makes a being greater? To say one cannot have a greatest possible island, or pizza, or unicorn, etc etc, but we can have a greatest possible being, is of course special pleading.

[@nealesmith1873]

When a proper proof is found, nobody can deny it.

[@MidwestArtMan]

This sounds like an F-Tier argument to me. It reminds me of that math problem about infinity where if you have infinite rooms filled by infinite guests, then the hotel is full. They say you can't add another guest, but if everyone moves down one room, then you can. It doesn't seem grounded in reality at all, just existing in a theoretical space that you make the logical rules for, which don't have to align with the real world.

[@captainwasabi13]

I'm not saying you're wrong but your comment doesn't connect the 2 arguments together clearly. Are you saying they are both consistent in their logic but not easy to think about? Because that was exactly what Anselm was trying to say: God = a good so good you can't even think about something greater because your brain breaks (which is, by definition, an idea you literally can't grasp)

[@MidwestArtMan]

@@captainwasabi13 That's understandable, but he seems to argue then that since that idea can be imagined, then God must exist in the real world, which doesn't seem like a conclusion you can jump to. I also don't understand why the perfect island/pizza is immediately shot down, but a perfect being isn't.

[@Tinesthia]

@@MidwestArtMan Trent and Bill’s objections to the perfect pizza/island don’t address it at all. Trent says a greatest possible island could have one more coconut tree to be greater, but that’s just false. Once an island has reached a certain number of coconut trees, adding more could actually make it worse. Bill says a greatest possible pizza could not be eaten, but that is false. A greatest possible pizza could be one that regenerates and appears whenever someone wants to eat it.” The whole point of the parody arguments wasn’t even attempted to be understood or answered. They show that the Ontological argument is begging the question. The conclusion is by definition in the premises. (God exists because I defined God as having an attribute that says God exists.) There is no way to connect it to reality. It becomes much more clear to see the issue when we replace “greatest possible” with “tastiest possible.” For a pizza that exists in all possible mouths is tastier than one we only conceive of.

[@captainwasabi13]

@@Tinesthia I don’t advocate for the ontological argument but I think you (and most people for that matter) have missed the argument. I think most people focus on the maximal greatness part and not the can’t imagine it better part Even in your examples your greatest island could a few too many coconuts or could add a few more or the pizza could be never ending, play rock music when you eat it and teach you kung fu. Anselm responded to the island (his buddy’s first written objection) is that you could imagine something making it better whereas the greatest being you could possibly imaginable has nothing more than you could imagine about it being better except for that being real… which would be a contradiction because then it wasn’t the greatest being you could imagine It’s more sleight-of-hand and tricky than most people realize but most people do sense that a trick was done and have a hard time articulating it and often focus on the wrong audience distractor

[@jareddembrun783]

​@@TinesthiaWLC is correct about the pizza, because, as he points out, the greatest possible pizza as a metaphysical idea would have to exist. But since a pizza by nature is contingent (and an island is, too), it could be destroyed, so there's no such thing as a maximally great pizza. Anselm himself actually responded to the island objection that his argument should only work for a necessary being.

[@belisaurusgaming6192]

This is why it's sometimes easier to just rely on intuition. My brain hurts now from constantly tracking what's possible and why.

[@fura21]

I'm sure Joe Schmidt will be responding to this video

[@newglof9558]

Yeah he tends to do that, doesn't he

[@DS-po6zd]

Who?

[@JohnSpencer90]

Even if we grant the existence of a God, which of the hundred versions of god are we specifically advocating for- Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddha.... ? Moreover, how can we be sure that this God is loving, moral, or desires a relationship with humans? This video is worth watching, but it overlooks the deeper issues that we truly care about when considering the possibility of a God.

[@jonathansmiddy7224]

Google just said there are 45,000 Christian denominations. What method can we use to determine which denomination is true?

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

It depends on where your father-in-law is buried. If he is alive, then his father and his father

[@jdotoz]

That number is not true in any meaningful way. Many of those "denominations" can be grouped into broader communions, where the differences that make the internal splits are not considered essential.

[@jonathansmiddy7224]

@jdotoz ok, great, but now check this out. I did a Google map search of my area, and I have 35 different Christian churches within a 5 mile radius of my house. Dang. How could a genuinely good and honest person seeking "the one true church" even begin to sort through this madness?

[@jdotoz]

@jonathansmiddy7224 You can start by ruling out any of the ones that don't claim to be the one true Church. If such a Church exists, it would know it, and if it knew it, it would claim to be it. I think you'll find that this narrows it down considerably. Then you can look at the actual history of the claimants; a true one should be able to show continuity back to the Apostolic era.

[@MPIO2023]

Catholic apostolic church ⛪️

[@TimiEweoba]

Editing mistake at 6:30 (that's Ludwig Wittgenstein picture not Norman Malcolm). Aside that, it's a great video

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

The ontological argument has always been one of my favorites precisely because it seems like a semantic trick My other favorite argument also feels like a trick, but I don't remember the formal name of it. I call it the statistical argument. 1. there's a 1 in several billion (0.000000000000001%) chance that the earth formed the way it did and humans evolved by unguided chance. 2. there is a 99.9999999999999% chance that humans came to be through the guiding of some creative agent. 3. It is therefore more probable that some God exists, rather than no God.

[@leonardoherreraornelas4667]

The ontological argumentt is Indeed a semantic trick and a HUGE leap from the logical to the ontological. Many believers do not use that argument and believe it's not a good one.

[@sfingaz9]

The odds are much lower than several billion. The cosmological constant alone is fined-tuned to 1 in 10^120 or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 (1 followed by 120 digits). And that's just one of the fundamental physical constants. They would all have to roll exactly right, by chance.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@ oh yeah, I'm not even considering all the constants, but it's insanely low when you add those. I'm just thinking of the probability that this universe would have developed the way it did. So even if all the fine-tuning constants were right, it's insanely unlikely that this particular planet would form and spring full of intelligent life completely by chance.

[@GrammeStudio]

i recognise the first premise being obtained through physics knowledge and math process but was the second premise obtained from the first through elimination process, or was it obtained independently through physics and math too?

[@landonlowe4029]

@@GrammeStudiothe second statement is just a corollary to the first … if you have 1% of a cake and no one else has had any then 99% of the cake is left

[@robertgroen2197]

great content Trent!

[@CatholicSamurai]

Pronouncing it “Saint Ahn-psalm” is a most egregious crime. I swear it’s an inside job among CA apologists to oddly mispronounce certain names and phrases.

[@salsuginusrex5196]

I'm hearing "ahn-selm." This might be a regional thing, the way that some people can't hear other people saying they want a glass of "melk."

[@huntersmith5067]

I think the Ontological argument is best framed as an argument from Desire; specifically desire for greatness, not mere sensual pleasure. If we can prove to Atheists that a relationship with a Trinitarian God is greatest possible existence, we have won the battle. Most of them think belief in God makes you less courageous and/or creative, and therefore less likely to be heroic/godlike. “Surprised by Joy” by CS Lewis is fundamentally the same thing Anselm’s doing, but in a more literary mode.

[@junkmail8883]

This is a really interesting though - thanks for sharing.

[@leondonmaya8878]

I never thought the “multiverse” would support god’s existence

[@WorkingFromHomeToday452]

Isn't it strange to have to make arguments for the existence of a thing? It feels like a massive, unsatisfying cope. You guys claim this thing exists, and ascribe it all of these amazing and deeply personal characteristics...yet there's no evidence of it?? Doesn't that feel weird? And then deep down you know that the arguments are fallacious in some way or built on faulty premises. Like, there's not one other thing I can think of that people do this for, other than god. I don't have to make arguments for the existence of a tiger. I can just provide evidence. Idk I guess people like what they like. And then the genuinely sad part that sums up my point is this video description "...that may be the key to proving God exists." You feel like you have to prove it. What does that say about your god if it won't do something as simple as reveal itself? What does that say about you? This is just enabling the growing grift of christian content that preys on people of faith.

[@joshuaparsons887]

It's very difficult to empirically prove something metaphysical

[@WorkingFromHomeToday452]

@ if it’s metaphysical, then why is it ascribed so many personal characteristics lol. This is the cope I’m talking about. “B…b…but it’s metaphysical wooooo”. My favorite is when people say god has to be spaceless and timeless, which is the literal definition of nothing haha

[@Unclenate1000]

Right?! You would think the “thing”, especially if it has personal characteristics and wants us to know/follow “it” would just show the hell up to us and talk to us like a real person. Like he allegedly did long ago and arbitrarily stopped for no reason

[@monkish2003]

Ngl I have never understood this arguement/ how it proves Gods existence and I still dont 😭. Fine tuning, cosmological, morality, life of Earth and the arguement from consciousness are all still goated tho

[@Teuts2000]

Same here, it's just confusing to me. One of my friends though helped me get a bit closer to understanding when he asked me to try to conceive something that is totally imaginary? It's hard to describe it but try to imagine a square circle and we know we can't. We do understand a square or a circle though, that impossible thing is made of actual parts that we understand right? Now try to imagine a...multqewiopedirsa. it's made of trkludna and cgsiwkems... Basically, try to create an idea of something that is genuinely unique and is made of something that doesn't exist. It's impossible, everything we understand is made of something that exists right? So it seems to me that if we can conceive of God, then we know God would have to be made of actual things we can conceive. Preexisting ideas...which seems to suggest that if we can conceive anything at all, it has to exist in a possible world. I'm sorry this is hard to explain but it sort of helped me to look at the argument in a new light.

[@monkish2003]

@Teuts2000 OK wait I think this actually helped me a little bit but I'm not quite there yet. I lowk wanna research this arguement more and view it through different lenses so I can truly understand it better

[@crazyassailant]

Same, lol. I straight up just don't get it. I'm happy to leave it at far smarter men than I have liked it, so maybe it'll make sense to me.

[@__cooper__]

It's because it doesn't make sense on its own, and requires on leaping during modal logic from possible to neccicary via top down justification vs bottom up empirical provable means. Taoism has a better take - that which can be conceived, spoken about, is not the eternal Dao. (Some denominations do this too, by saying what God is *not*, but still cling to some top down dogma) In that sense, if you can conceive of a maximally great being, that isn't God, the universe or whatever. That's a conception in the mind.

[@shamusson]

It works if you are a philosophical realist, aka if you believe that ideas are real. As such, if God exists as an idea, then so he does in reality. Most atheists wouldn't agree with this argument because they are nominalists, believing that ideas are not grounded in reality, but only language.

[@ART224]

As Trent alluded toward the end of this video, the ontological arguments are actually stronger for me than the cosmological arguments and speak to me more. I think Anselm’s ontological argument is very sound.

[@tyrannosauruszeppelin2205]

First time I properly understood this argument. God bless you.

[@ajohnson929]

None of this matters if you think god gave you freewill. lol. How is it a free choice to even exist? God would need to ask my free willed conscience if I even wanted to exist and THAT is a paradox. Freewill CANNOT be given, granted or forced on an unsuspecting conscience. The game never even starts for Christians. You’re wrong before you even began the argument. Silly

[@grahamash62]

What a word salad 😂 it's pretty simple ask YHWH to show up. End of argument 😂

[@Unclenate1000]

Shouldnt even have to ask if he loves us so much and its paramount that we know/follow him 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@grahamash62]

@Unclenate1000 if he's there, ask him to reveal himself to the world. End of argument.

[@Tinesthia]

@@grahamash62 I demonstrate YHWH doesn’t exist every day by the precedent that He and Elijah set in 1st Kings 18 for determining if a God exists or has power.

[@dogeboithedoomslayer]

@@grahamash62saying, “end of argument” doesn’t actually end the argument fyi. If you genuinely believe the “erm…if God so good and wants us to believe, why he no show himself?” argument is a good argument, look up more videos that may challenge your world view.

[@sidneygray51]

I could totally imagine eating a perfect form of pizza with Plato.

[@jackieo8693]

God is love itself!

[@carolzappa1804]

God is Beauty itself God is Truth itself God is Goodness itself God is Mercy itself God is Power itself God is Justice itself God is Peace itself God is Joy itself God is Holiness itself God is Humility itself God is Selflessness itself God is Life itself God is...... 🙏🕊❤✝️👑

[@jackieo8693]

@carolzappa1804 amen

[@DavidHambidge]

This is a genuine question coming from a young Catholic why are things in the New Testament such as your clothes being not mixed fabrics piercings etc. I’m just really curious and it doesnt make much sense to me.

[@friedrichrubinstein]

Did you mean Old Testament? I'm not aware of a passage in the New Testament that talks about not mixed fabrics and piercings.

[@RexKochanski]

First, all the stuff about fabrics, etc. was OLD Testament ceremonial law designed to keep the Jewish people distinct from all others UNTIL the advent of the Messiah, or in Greek, Christ....

[@DavidHambidge]

Ohhhhhh ok this makes much more sense thank you

[@Enlightened_Aura]

If god can exist without a creator or god. Then the universe can exist without a creator or god.

[@krater2137]

no, because the universe has a distinction between it’s essence (what it is) and it’s existence (that it is) God is His existence, there is no distinction between His essence and existence, HE IS THAT HE IS

[@Enlightened_Aura]

@ 😂

[@krater2137]

@ what’s so funny?

[@SuatUstel]

​@krater2137 your ineptitude!!!!!!

[@PitchBlack0000]

@@krater2137 Evidence of this? Not your book, real evidence.

[@theinstituteofmonkeygunvio2542]

The reason the ontological argument is seen as a semantic trick is because it basically defines God into existence.

[@DerekPower]

Anti-theists think it's impossible to conceive the idea of God ... yet continuously conceive of innumerable ways to be a-holes =D

[@DnDandVideoGames]

Atheists: God doesn't exist, your dumb Also atheists: We are not in base reality, this is a simulation. Atheists are just dumb

[@Daniel-wr9ql]

@@DnDandVideoGamesyou’re*

[@Mr.Victor-qs2hj]

​@@DnDandVideoGamesWdym????!?!

[@MyContext]

P1: Asserts do not sustain anything as an actual. P2: God claims are assertions. C: God claims are not established as an actual.

[@bobjames5907]

What do you mean by an assertion? Because in the usual understanding of the term assertion, it does 'sustain an actual'. Indeed, that is the definition of an assertion, in that it states what is actually the case. It is opposed to an apodictic, which is a statement of necessary/self-evident truth, or a problematic, which is a statement of possibility. But perhaps you mean assertion with the connotation of opinion. In which case you're right, opinions do not 'sustain anything as an actual'. But that is why an opinion is substantiated by argument. The ontological argument is not a 'God claim' alone, it is a 'God argument.' So object to the argument, therefore object to the claim. The case you present here is a hasty syllogism and unwise.

[@njhoepner]

Just four quick things: 1) The ontological argument, in whatever form, is in fact a semantic trick...the sense one gets that this is so, even if one cannot pin it down right away, is the main reason it is so unconvincing; 2) IF the ontological argument is logically sound, then the ad absurdum objection must also be sound. If taking a logical argument to its logical conclusion is unsound, then that argument itself must be unsound. Thus I can use the ontological argument to prove the existence of a dragon that ate god. 3) If an argument can be used to prove an absurdity, then the argument is absurd, regardless of its valid following of logical rules. 4) More fundamentally, the very fact that one has to use all these arguments - all of which have strengths and weaknesses - to "prove" the existence of god seems to me the strongest evidence that there is no such person. There is no real person for whom one needs to go through all these mental gymnastics just to demonstrate their existence.

[@RexKochanski]

Re your #4: No one "has" to use an ontological argument. There are other philosophical arguments for the existence of God (many of which are older than Anselm). After Anselm, many philosophers (like Thomas Aquinas) did not accept Anselm 's "proof". Personally, the Aquinas argument I prefer is the argument from contingency....

[@njhoepner]

@@RexKochanski Which is why I said "all these arguments." Anselm used one, Aristotle used cosmological and contingency arguments (which Aquinas borrowed), Aquinas added a design argument, others use "fine tuning," on and on it goes. This argument, that one, the other one. If you scratch into any of them, none are very convincing. My point is simply that one does not have to use any of these arguments to demonstrate the existence of any real person, especially a person who is supposedly still alive and active in the world. To me it literally screams that there is no god.

[@bobjames5907]

Regarding your second point: The principle you cite of "if taking an argument to its logical conclusion is unsound, then that argument itself must be unsound." I would like to know your justification for this principle. I would also like to know how the first statement, that "IF the ontological argument is logically sound, then the ad absurdum objection must also be sound" is exactly proven by the second statement which provides the principle. Here is why I cast doubt on your case, by your seeming conflation of the notions of validity and soundness. 'Taking an argument to its logical conclusion' is a matter of validity, not necessarily a matter of soundness. If an argument is valid but unsound, then it is because one of its premises is untrue. In which case, an ontological argument being sound - and/or unsound - and its 'ad absurdum objection' being sound/unsound, is not necessarily because you have 'taken a thing to its logical conclusion', or not. You may agree or disagree with the premises, or find that the inferences made are invalid. There are two ways to object, and one doesn't necessitate the other.

[@alphaecho3875]

​​@@njhoepnerto you it screams there is no God? Is that subjective? Is what you think the basis of reality?

[@njhoepner]

@@bobjames5907 Unsoundness can be about the premises, or it can be about the inferences made from those premises. Validity is merely about following the rules. True premises + one or more unsound inferences will lead to an unsound conclusion, even if all the rules are followed, just as surely as untrue premises will. What I'm saying is that if the logical conclusion of an argument leads to absurdities, then either it did not follow the rules or there must be something in the argument itself that is unsound. If it followed the rules, and many philosophers insist the ontological argument follows the rules and is therefore valid, then the problem must be either with the premises or the inferences from the premises. With the ontological argument, I think the failure is in the idea that existence in the mind is the same as existence in reality...the argument is slippery enough that I can't tell whether that is a premise or an inference, but either way it's wrong, and that is why it leads to absurdities.

[@bruhmingo]

Ontological + contingency arguments work really well together.

[@pipexllxxl]

Existence in itself is Evidence for God

[@Mr.Victor-qs2hj]

No...

[@newglof9558]

​@@Mr.Victor-qs2hjYes

[@Mr.Victor-qs2hj]

@@newglof9558 How? 😂

[@Mr.Victor-qs2hj]

@@newglof9558There is no evidence for god. It is accepted by everyone.

[@Mr.Victor-qs2hj]

@@newglof9558 Bro is a joker fr.

[@briarreport8408]

Would it be incorrect logic to look up into the sky and see the vastness of the stars and universe and think to yourself this must be proof of God? The more we learn answers many scientific questions, but at the core of it, how could something like that come from nothing? There must be a creator.

[@dreamingbutterfly1]

I would think of that as more intuition than logic, in the same way that torture strikes one as morally morally wrong, the experience of nature could strike one as the product of God's creation. Of course, both of those intuitions are subject to criticism, so reasoning will eventually be involved. I think merely looking up at the stars, concluding "God must have made this" and then not thinking about it further is a rather naive approach, but I think there are rational ways to bolster the intuition.

[@briarreport8408]

@@dreamingbutterfly1 You're probably right.

[@lmsiv5829]

Thank you Trent for your study, dedication, and applying your God given talent into strengthening our faith and equipping us with the tools necessary to defend it

[@roinois]

This is really helpful. Never understood the ontological argument until now

I like to demonstrate that the greatest possible island would be greater if it wasn't restrained to being an island, and then I prove that it's actually God

[@jdotoz]

If it was something other than an island, it could hardly be the best possible island. Its departure from islandness makes it a worse island.

[@sordidknifeparty]

What is the greater property, to be maximally humble, or maximally prideful? Is it possible for God to have both of those properties simultaneously? If not which does he have, and why?

[@wms72]

God has no sinful pride. Humility is assent to reality , so God is maximally humble, since He knows Himself 100% accurately.

[@jonasmlgaard-asmussen9844]

I think that's actually a very valid question. What does it even mean to say something is maximally great. There seems to be some subjectivity involved. Can we even identify an objective standard for what constitutes greatness? If we take a property like justice, we can probably agree that a maximally great being should be maximally just, but what does that mean if we unpack it since we have different ideas on what is just? Fx, does maximal justice include mercy? Christians would probably have to say so, since mercy is an integral part of God's nature accoring to them, but then mercy can also be seen as a departure from justice. To me, it seems the ontological argument falls apart in the failure to identify what constitutes maximality in the underlying properties we'd ascribe to a maximally great being.

[@wms72]

@jonasmlgaard-asmussen9844 Christian theologians say God's mercy IS His justice, and vice versa. For as you ascend the scale of perfection in God's attributes, they begin to merge into each other.

[@jonasmlgaard-asmussen9844]

@@wms72 Yes, but they do so based on their own subjective interpretation of the concepts of justice an mercy, not based on an objective understaning of them. Others would say maximal justice and mercy are incompatible. The point is that it's very hard to reach any objective definition of maximal greatness when we can't even agree on what one of properties - justice - consists of.

[@wms72]

@@jonasmlgaard-asmussen9844 I disagree. From a Christian perspective, it is obvious that God's attributes become one as our consideration of them approaches their perfection. Seen in the Light of Christ.

[@Philip__325]

Maximally great pizza does exist. Dominos thin crust, square cut pizza, extra pepperoni, chili flakes, garlic herb seasoning and a bowl of ranch on the side.

[@DirtyDan77]

Bro, if dominos is your idea of a great pizza, you gotta get out more. It's cheap, but that's where the good points end.

[@MrsYasha1984]

... your idea of a maximally great pizza is from a chain store? Wow. You poor thing

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

Someone's never had Giordano's Chicago style pizza

[@jdotoz]

Bruh

[@Philip__325]

Maximally great pizza when you live in a small town of 8000 people and the closest pizza place is a twenty minute drive to dominoes

[@frrankdesilva6504]

Following Rene Descartes meditation Category 1: Minds I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist. Category 2: Matter I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categorise as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists. Category 3: Space My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist. Category 4: Time My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist. From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another. Now to the question of the origin of these categories Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another? Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time. From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localised change to space and time. So then could space and time be the origin of everything else? Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories. Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events? Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event. There can be no space , time or matter without events. In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next. From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories Category 1 : Minds Category 2 : Events Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical. Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind? If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind. Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind. This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger) So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds. These other minds may have also been created by The Mind such that the earthly life of each mind is the big bang that determines the eternal or heavenly life of that mind in The Mind. philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/1020/0

[@Nick-ij5nt]

There's so much wrong with this argument, we really shouldn't be using it in apologetics. Firstly, I would say the premises are a nonsequitur and secondly, I don't think the premises can be epistemically justified. It's weird to me that a lot of protestants and Catholics will latch onto the worst arguments for God while ignoring all of the best ones. In reality there are only like 2 or 3 good arguments for God and this isn't one of them.

[@dreamingbutterfly1]

Yeah, I really dislike the mentality Trent stated at the end, where he's totally unconcerned with whether the arguments work, just whether they're useful for getting someone to agree with him. This sort of intellectual apathy is why apologetics gets a bad rap.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

How are the premises nonsequitur? you don't think that the premises can be epistemically justified? how so?

[@Nick-ij5nt]

@@dreamingbutterfly1 This is why Catholicism is an atheism factory. Some people will believe in the truth for the wrong reasons, and this will ultimately lead to people deconverting. We want people converting to Christianity for the right reasons and not for the wrong reasons.

[@Nick-ij5nt]

@@johnisaacfelipe6357 Layout the ontological argument as a syllogism and I'll deconstruct it for you.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

Its literally online, its one of the most circulated argument for God, if you went to a philosophy 2 course you would have found it in a syllogistic form, google it, in a bus right now

[@BARKERPRODUCTION]

A real cookie is “greater” than the idea of a maximally great being.

[@Fauntleroy.]

Theists should accept that there is no perfect argument for their gods. If there was, all this work and all this faith would be unnecessary. To someone who already doesn't find the foundational principles compelling, it all comes off as nothing more than "argument from wordplay."

[@Idishrkdmd]

there are eg cosmological arguements it's just that some people don't want to accept God exists just as flat earthers can deny any evidence they see so can athiests and ultimatly ontological arguements are the weaker ones you arent't top dog bro don't talk like it.

[@Monkofmagnesia]

St. Anselm, the patron of my monastery, St. Anselm's Abbey in Washington, DC.

[@GranMaese]

Just a friendly reminder than when some of the so called atheists say: "I rather find this argument very weak [like the fine tuning]" they usually just say so out of spite, out of feelings, not because they have actually understood the argument properly [nor care about it], in their minds all that matters is saying "no" for the sake of "no".

[@Idishrkdmd]

an arguement can be 100% true and some people will still deny it because they don't want it to be true likw athiests with God.

[@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues]

Yep. Just like that atheist Thomas Aquinas. There’s nothing to his critique of Anselm’s argument.

[@GranMaese]

@@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues Thank you for proving my point. Atheists truly have nothing to say. And if they do, that's solely after some theologian. [Go figure]. Thomas Aquinas, being a responsible religious man, actually presented an intellectual counter-argument, and he considers that he himself builds an even better case, but he doesn't dismiss the other argument "just because" nor calls it "bad" as atheists do. Subtle difference, but very important, and the whole point. So, thank you again for proving it, because I was not even talking about the ontological one, but the fine tuning as stated in the video... but you just wanted to say "something" out of spite... so easy, so predictable, so atheist in a nutshell.

[@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues]

@@GranMaese So, your OP was NOT meant to imply that atheists just deny the ontological argument, as well as the fine-tuning argument? Even though you posted on a Trent video specifically addressing the ontological argument? Gee, my bad, I guess. As for the rest of your screed, I don’t care who publishes critiques of this argument for a god or of any other argument as long as they get out there. When you actually find the god you’ve predefined, let us know. We’d love to see it do its thing.

[@GranMaese]

@@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues Also thanks again for proving you not even watched the video before commenting.

[@tyamada21]

A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to an NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.

[@majmage]

The Greatest Possible Undetectable Anti-Deity Donut (which prevented all gods) must exist, because otherwise it wouldn't be greatest. If you can think of this idea (and you can, just be reading this), then it exists in your mind, but it's not the greatest possible Donut because it only exists in your mind. Therefore a Donut must exist in reality. Therefore gods don't exist. Pointless wordplay is a double-edged sword, theists. When an argument is bad, you should be willing to admit it's bad.

[@newglof9558]

Why are atheists so, so boring

[@jussim.konttinen4981]

Fireplace is empty and clean. Scientifically prove 0 pine twigs. Was it a newspaper that burned? Maybe it was birch. Maybe the fireplace was not used. What is a woman? Is your mother a woman? 😁 We don't know everything 100%. This is why bridges collapse.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

If a God can be defeated by this donut, its not God, so its not a thing of which no greater thing can be imagined

[@majmage]

@@johnisaacfelipe6357 If truth matters so little to you that you aren't even going to read and consider an argument, why even reply? 1. You ignored the point being made here, which reveals how this argument for god is nonsense. 2. With the Donut, gods don't exist. (Something must exist to be defeated.)

[@majmage]

@@johnisaacfelipe6357 Does that make sense? Do you care about truth? Because if you think your reply addressed my argument then you know for a fact I can do the same thing by saying the Greatest Possible Donut preventing all gods wouldn't be greatest possible if a god existed, right? It'd have failed at that function.

[@SmartDumbNerdyCool]

Wasn't sure if you were a skeptic or not, but I'm glad you believe in God, you sound like an intelligent guy. Now we have you, and that Chris Langan guy - smartest man in the world on our side.

[@bassemmi1]

I am convinced anyone who dismisses St. Anselm's argument doesn't understand St. Anselm, because all their responses is refuting a conception of God not according to his definition. Kant changing the meaning of existence to being something upredicated reduces God to a thought again, proving St. Anselm's point.

[@stephengalanis]

My problem with the ontological argument is that it treats existence like an add-on trait. Anselm is comparing two concepts of god. The first has traits x, y, z. The second has traits x, y, z too, but has the additional trait of existence. The second god is clearly superior. The greatest possible being, necessarily, must have existence unlike the god that does not. And that's a category mistake about what existence is. Anselm uses existence that way to make the argument, it's baked in. And it makes no sense. It's not that we / Kant don't understand. We do. Defenders of Anselm need to show that Anselm's usage of existence is valid. Most philosophers do not see existence that way, maybe you should blame Anselm for using a non-standard meaning?

[@Boundless_Border]

I dismiss the what St. Anselm put forth because it is an invalid. To be fair, he wasn't putting it forth as an argument. Kant didn't change the meaning of existence. You can disagree and consider existence a predicate. But that is a different story. Just to help illustrate why someone wouldn't consider existence as a predicate. You can think of Dracula. Down to the most minute of details. But the one that exists outside your mind has all the same traits as the one inside your mind. If not then you can't actually think of Dracula since your conception will lack the property of his physical existence.

[@josephvictory9536]

​@@stephengalanisI don't know how you can't see the sense in it. A perfect pie in the imagination is inferior to one in your hands or better, mouth. Athiests routinely call god imaginary and pretend he doesn't exist when he does. I too can plug my ears and yell lalala but it's not reason. If God being a figment of imagination of believers is an argument against believing in God. Then existence is absolutely a property that is added onto any being provided that being cannot be referenced elsewhere. The idea is that any thought or concept may exist or it may not. Its existence is indeterminate till proved. But even reasoning about something, if it is truly good and not in existence this is worse than if it were. For objects we revert to the system to determine value relative. But what about the system itself. That being is here, that we exist. As opposed to nothing. It's clearly good that we are here. But you cannot prove that without self reference. And yet it is true because the potential for good is greater than no potential. If existence for something unreferenceable can be good. Then God's existence can be added on as a necessary condition to his greatness because he cannot actually be greater than even a poor pizza if he does not exist. This is because the idea of something as good is not the same as it being good. But the idea of it can contain both the being and the good. And this is the proof. How else do you prove anything. Your foot, a chair. It's all reference or a well contained idea. As a corollary consider illusions which are proved t9 mind but false contained ideas. The mechanism of mind leads a person astray but the underlying reality continues on. Making an error about God's nonexistence cannot make him not exist. It cannot go the other way because that which is maximally good can be inferred from that anything can be more good than anything. And existence for everything which is necessary is good. The purpose of the argument isn't to meander about hard topics like I would like. It is simple. Does it make sense that something is more good when it is real than not? Like a father's hug. Does it make sense that a being could be maximally great? Then that being and only that being exists by this reason. Since if any being isn't maximally great there is nothing necessary about its existence. Another way of proving it is more mathematical. If you kept adding +1 could you keep adding +1. Yes. Therefore infinity is real as long as numbers are real. But only understandable as an identity since it cannot ever be contained by finite atomic additions. It literally can only apply to god with certainty. Only God qualifies at the limit.

[@bassemmi1]

@@Boundless_Border Yea but you do realize that applies to anything other than God, because anything other than God is not the greatest that can be conceived.

[@bassemmi1]

@@stephengalanis Your complaint about existence is already illustrated in the objections about the greatest possible island or pizza; the question on existence applies to all except for God in St. Anselm's argument, which was his point.

[@bobbsurname3140]

"Great" is too ambiguous a trait to be meaningfully maximized. Further, there are plenty of known attributes that don't have a definite maximum. If you attempt to give "Great" a usable meaning, then how would you know whether its capped or not? Like, suppose greatness is the capacity for influence. Being A is the greatest. But what if you dupicate Being A, and give him control over both beings? Is this new composite being not greater than Being A?

[@__cooper__]

That which cannot be described is the eternal Dao

[@MotherLovingChristian]

This comment could have been otherwise

[@classicalteacher]

I wouldn't respond to that kind of argument.