Would the Real Ontological Argument Please Stand Up?

[@DanielCathers]

There are two reactions to this argument: 1. Wow I really understand this and the stakes it lays out for the theist and atheist. 2. I don't like learning about logic and this sounds too hard for me. There must be something wrong with it.

[@Jockito]

3. I've never heard any compelling reason to think premise 1 is either true or false. Thus, I think the intellectually honest position is to withhold judgement on premise 1

[@the-nick-of-time]

Food for thought: why is existence greater than nonexistence? What is greatness anyway? Is there a non-subjective definition of greatness? Furthermore, if we make some easy substitutions in the premises (as _maximally great being_ is defined as _being that exists_ , as it exists in the actual world as well as others) we can see that the first premise shakes out to be _it is possible that _*_a being that exists_*_ exists_ making the first premise into question-begging. One counter that I personally thought of when I first encountered the Anselmian argument is about circles. A maximally circular object can only exist in the mind and not in reality, since in reality things are made of atoms that produce aberrations to the circle-ness. So actually, things that do not exist in reality are more perfect than those that exist only within the mind.

[@jeremykoehnlein2158]

Nice straw man, but I myself usually reject circular arguments, thanks.

[@AbsentMinded619]

Greatness was pretty clearly defined as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. right in this video To assume that knowing less than everything is not necessarily less than knowing EVERYTHING is silly. To assume that not existing is quantitatively the same as existing is also silly. If this is what a defense of atheism amounts to, then atheism has retreated to absurdism, rejecting basic tenets of logic and just resorting to “nothing means anything” subjectivism.

[@jeremykoehnlein2158]

@@AbsentMinded619 okay, I can absolutely agree existing is different from not doing so. But which is greater? And why?

[@savedbymylovegodthelordjes8394]

praise the only true living LORD and GOD bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY forever and ever amen 💖✝✝✝...

[@johnthebaptist4092]

Loving the eminem-vibes

[@sharonmathew2225]

I think any analogy other than a being is not valid in refuting this argument. The word Ontology means study of being. When we deal with the supreme being like God and to come up with the idea of a "greatest presentation" as an example to explain or refute this argument, that argument dose not apply to this idea and it is really childish.

[@fundamentality]

Based comment

[@mattm7798]

IMO this is among the least convincing of the arguments for the avg person IMO because premise 2 into 3, which is the crux of the argument. I myself, being a christian, don't even understand why 2 leads to 3. I find the moral argument and the kalam argument much strong for the avg person. That said, I'm obviously missing something so feel free to reply with any explanation.

[@kristheobserver]

Because a maximally great being who could only exist in some possible worlds is not as great as a maximally great being who exist in all possible worlds. Basically the first being is contradictory and cannot exist.

[@MBarberfan4life]

Because necessary beings exist in all possible worlds.

[@petromax4849]

@@kristheobserver That's just building in necessary existence to your definition of 'maximally great.' It's totally arbitrary. Why should existing in all possible worlds be considered great?

[@Christi_Bellator]

Alvin Plantiga uses "Modal Logic" so the only thing Skeptics/Atheist can argue from Alvin Plantiga Ontological Argument is Premise 1. Since, the rest of the premises would just follow Modal Logic. Theist say God is a "necessary" entity and Skeptics/Atheist would have to show why God is an "impossible" entity. This all relies on Premise 1 of Alvin Plantiga Modal Ontological Argument.

[@Christi_Bellator]

@@petromax4849 Necessity is a great making property and God being Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent could only support the Ontological Argument. He's all-powerful, everywhere, knows everything, and is a necessary entity.

[@KudaIzka]

How is Rationality Rules has so many followers with that poor reasoning?

[@mystery6411]

Because they really think he's rational. He should just quit this logic thing and replace the vocalist of Gun's and Roses because that's where his face fits.

[@the-nick-of-time]

The video being responded to is explicitly meant to be humorous. Do you demand perfect philosophical rigor in your comedy? If you want actual philosophical argument check out his recent "arguments for god tier list" where he covers both the anselmian and modal ontological arguments.

[@jeremykoehnlein2158]

At least he reasoned better than Craig.

[@kristheobserver]

@@jeremykoehnlein2158 Well seeing he bungled the argument completely by confusing a necessary being with a contingent object and Craig got the argument correct it seems odd indeed to say he can reason better than Craig. The fact he has a neck tattoo speaks volumes about his reasoning skills.

[@kristheobserver]

@@the-nick-of-time Humor is fine if you get it right. However he didn't as he confused a necessary being with a contingent object, that would be akin to confusing the Allies and Axis in the Second World War then wanting people to think you are an authority on it.

[@petromax4849]

Thinking about this more, it seems that if you define God as a necessary being, then God either exists in all possible worlds or in none. So the question is, is a necessary being possible? To show that a necessary being is possible, it is not enough to imagine a possible world where it exists, because it's just as easy to imagine a possible world where it doesn't exist. There needs to be some argument for the impossibility of a necessary being's non-existence that does not rely on the definition of 'necessary.'

[@therick363]

That was well said.

[@Rom.Ch5.v5]

@@therick363 No, it was not in the slightest

[@Rom.Ch5.v5]

Lol, no, we won't bend the rules for you. It could be a necessary entity, being, or thing. "The questions is, is a necessary being possible?" - The answer is, yes! Shape definitions and numbers are necessary entities and would have to exist in all possible worlds. God would be a necessary entity. Nobody that uses the MOA only follows their ✨ IMAGINATION ✨. They use logic. The MOA is meant to inform the ontology of this Maximally Great Being we call God and serves as a scientific formula. It's not a persuasive argument. Nothing hinders on the word "necessary" unless one finds a problem with it. "... because it's just as easy to imagine a world where it doesn't exist." -Again nobody just uses ✨IMAGINATION ✨ they use logic. If you believe that there is a world where "necessary" entities don't exist, that's illogical. Essentially nothing in that world would actually exist. One cannot use use logical absurdities to disprove the existence of God especially in "Modal Logic". If Theist use Logic to prove the existence of God the other side can't step outside of Logic to disprove God. "There needs to be a some argument for the impossibility of a necessary beings non-existence that does not rely on the definition of necessary" - No, there does not. We won't bend the rules for you, we don't do it to any top tier philosopher, why would we bend the argument to laymen? Theist claim God is a necessary entity, you have to disprove why he is not. Your special pleading lol But I'll still answer your challenge: God being Omniscient knows everything, that means everything in every possible world God being Omnipresent can be present everywhere in every possible world God being Omnipotent means God is all powerful over everything in every possible world. Why? Because these attributes would logically have to apply to Everything because God is ALL POWER, ALL KNOWING, PRESENT EVERYWHERE. So there is your answer how God would be in all possible worlds without necessity. But again your special pleading because theist claim God (Maximally Great Being) have Great Making Properties and "necessity" would be one of them. No way around that unless you can prove why that's an illogical and incoherent concept, which Skeptics/Atheist can't.

[@therick363]

@@Rom.Ch5.v5 actually it's you who is pulling the special pleading there.

[@Rom.Ch5.v5]

@@therick363 Wow! So much facts you presented and knowledge you instilled, totally destroyed me... Get educated bro. There is no special pleading on my part. I would suggest for you to take a philosophy class when your old enough, it will do you well. I can also suggest the books to read on to actually understand the argument. Most atheist philosophers actually interact with the argument and try to explain why God is an Impossible entity rather by "Special pleading" or dismissing it like you. If you want I can point you out to other videos that may help you understand and then work your way up to books, have a good day

[@mickygchannel]

Rationality rules. That's the guy that sourced wrong info from Wikipedia and got called out by Cameron in a debate

[@forall1796]

Everybody makes mistakes so what’s the point ? Are you said he ain’t like your dishonest infallible apologetics who has figured everything out in armchair lol?

[@mickygchannel]

@@forall1796 it's not about being wrong. Dude, he sourced Wikipedia.

[@forall1796]

@@mickygchannel And what’s wrong with that ? Someone can source any site as long as it fits the context. If the claim is x is not found in any site, I can site Wikipedia as a counter evidence as long as x is found there. So what makes it wrong for Steven to site Wikipedia?

[@therick363]

@@mickygchannel and apologists like Craig think they know more than experts in various fields.

[@LomuHabana]

“His criticism don’t apply” Craig’s version is in essence the same as Anselms version, just syntactically a little different.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

"Craig’s version is in essence the same as Anselms version" - No it isn't. Also, it is Plantinga's formulation. Anselm's version of the ontological argument neglects to address the possibility of God's existence, Whereas Plantinga's formulation simply deduces the logically necessary implications of the possibility of God's existence. If it is possible that God (Maximally Great Being) exists, then it follows by logical necessity that God exists.

[@LomuHabana]

@@jackplumbridge2704 I know it’s Platinga’s but Craig reformulated it slightly. No, Anselm used instead of possible existence existence in the mind. He argued that MGB (god) exists in the mind (it is possible that god exists). He then argued it is greater to exists in reality than in the mind alone (necessary existence is greater than possible/contingent existence). So if MGB didn’t exist in reality, then one could conceive of a being which has the same Properties/qualities but exists in reality and is therefore greater (MGB must therefore exist necessarily). “If it is possible that GOD (Maximally Great being) exists, then it follows by logical necessity that God exists.” No that is the point, that only works if define god into existence, (existence as predicate), which both Anselm and Platinga/Craig do. 1. MGB necessarily exists (because necessarily existence is greater than contingent exists) 2. Is it possible that a being (MGB) that must exist ( necessary existence), exists? 3. If possible, then a being (MGB) that exists in all possible worlds ( necessary existence), exists in some possible world. 4. A being which exists in all possible worlds, exists in all possible worlds. 5. A being which must exist (necessary existence), exists. Conclusion: If it is possible that a being for which it is impossible not to exist (necessary existence), exists, then a being for which it is impossible not to exist, exists. Don’t you see it? This is a tautological statement without any value. Defining god into existence. To make it even clearer: Is it possible that god (MGB) doesn’t exist? (Unless there is proof that he MUST, any rational person would answer with yes) Then god does not exist in some possible world. But since god is maximally great, it means if he existed in some possible world, he’d exist in all of them (Platinga’s/Craig’s conclusion following logically) So god does not exist in any possible world. God does not exist in our world. God does not exist Conclusion: If it is possible that doesn’t exist, he doesn’t exist.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

​@@LomuHabana "No, Anselm used instead of possible existence existence in the mind. He argued that MGB (god) exists in the mind (it is possible that god exists)." - That is not what Anselm was arguing. When Anselm says that he can conceive of God, he is not arguing that God's existence is possible. A clear proof of this is the fact that infinity is a concept which can exist in the mind, but cannot be actualised in the real world. The fact that something can exist in the mind is not an argument for that thing being possible (actualisable). "He then argued it is greater to exists in reality than in the mind alone (necessary existence is greater than possible/contingent existence)." - That is also not what Anselm is arguing lol. Stating that something which exists in the real world is greater than something that exists in the mind alone is not at all the same as claiming that necessary existence is greater than contingent existence. Necessary existence is not "existing in the actual world". "So if MGB didn’t exist in reality, then one could conceive of a being which has the same Properties/qualities but exists in reality and is therefore greater (MGB must therefore exist necessarily)." - This is logically incoherent. A maximally great being is a being which is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and necessary. If such a being is impossible, then it is impossible that it exists. You cannot claim that a MGB is impossible, but that it also actually exists. You are committing yourself to self-contradictory incoherent nonsense. "No that is the point, that only works if define god into existence, (existence as predicate), which both Anselm and Platinga/Craig do." - Again, you are wrong. The modal ontological argument does not define anything into existence. I have no idea why you keep claiming it does, and then failing to explain how it does. And i can clearly show you how it is logically impossible for a necessary being to be possible but not actual, it is trivially easy to do so. A necessary being cannot fail to exist, a necessary being has no potential to not exist. To say, therefore, that a necessary being is possible but not actual is to say: 1) A being which cannot fail to exist, failed to exist. 2) A being which has no potential to not exist, does not exist. Both of these claims are self-contradictory and logically incoherent. It is like saying a man is both married and not married, or a square is both round and not round. "1. MGB necessarily exists (because necessarily existence is greater than contingent exists) 2. Is it possible that a being (MGB) that must exist ( necessary existence), exists? 3. If possible, then a being (MGB) that exists in all possible worlds ( necessary existence), exists in some possible world. 4. A being which exists in all possible worlds, exists in all possible worlds. 5. A being which must exist (necessary existence), exists." - This isn't the modal ontological argument. You either have absolutely no idea what the modal ontological argument is, or you are intentionally strawmanning and misrepresenting it. Which is it? "Don’t you see it? This is a tautological statement without any value. Defining god into existence." - No, the modal ontological argument does define God into existence. It demonstrates that the possibility of god's existence entails his actual existence, since it is impossible for a necessary being to be possible but not actual. Hence, there are only 2 possible options in regards to God's existence. 1) God's existence is actual. 2) God's existence is impossible. This is why the only debate is over premise 1: It is possible that God (MGB) exists. The rest of the argument follows by logical necessity. "Is it possible that god (MGB) doesn’t exist? (Unless there is proof that he MUST, any rational person would answer with yes)" - No. they wouldn't lol. You don't seem to understand the difference between metaphysical possibility and epistemic possibility. The statement "it is possible God does not exist" is logically equivalent to the statement "it is impossible that God exists", since the only way a necessary being can possible not exist is if the necessary being is actually an impossible being. To repeat: There are only 2 possible options regarding God's existence. 1) God's existence is actual. 2) God's existence is impossible. This is precisely what the modal ontological argument points out, and argues, in the first premise, that God's existence is possible, and therefore, actual. There is no defining into existence. You have simply failed to understand the argument.

[@LomuHabana]

@@jackplumbridge2704 wow, seriously? C’mon man I didn’t say existence in the mind is possible existence, I made the analogy that it uses different notions but follows the same logic. I thought you would understand that. It uses existence as a predicate, god is “a (necessarily) existent being”. And infinity doesn’t exist in actuality? Duh, it’s a continuation of a number. Of course they do not literally exist, But some physical objects have infinite mass (singularity) at least with our current physical understanding. And some things might even be past eternal, meaning it existed for an infinite amount of time (in our understanding) I am not straw maning, the modal ontological argument does that. Necessary existence implies possible existence in modal logic, not the other way around, so the only way that possible existence leads to necessary existence is if it is already defined as necessarily existent Again: Is it possible for god not to exist? If the only allowed “logical” answer is no. Then you defined god into existence. Because if you understood modal)logic (axioms) then you’d understand that: impossible X means necessarily not X, necessarily Y implies possible Y. X = God exists, Y = not X. “If it impossible for god to exist then it is possible that god does not exist” So if the answer to the question: “Is it possible for god not to exist?” is NO. Then impossible existence is ruled out as well, so conclusion? By definition, god must exist. Greatness properties: omnipotence, omni bla bla bla…, necessary existence (here, you defined it into existence). And stop with “metaphysical” vs “epistemological”. If we want to talk about existence, epistemology comes necessarily into play. We’ve been over this, existence is not a predicate, logic is not magic, logic is a set of rules we apply to language. If you are really confused, I am happy to help you understand, if you will fully ignorant, then only “god” can help you.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@LomuHabana "I didn’t say existence in the mind is possible existence, I made the analogy that it uses different notions but follows the same logic." - Ad i pointed out that it does not, since saying "x exists in the mind" is a completely different claim to "x is possible". "I thought you would understand that. It uses existence as a predicate, god is “a (necessarily) existent being”. " - No, the modal ontological argument does not use existence as a predicate. The modal ontological argument simple states that God's existence is possible. It does not assume that God exists, nor does it define God into existence. "And infinity doesn’t exist in actuality? Duh, it’s a continuation of a number. Of course they do not literally exist, But some physical objects have infinite mass (singularity) at least with our current physical understanding. And some things might even be past eternal, meaning it existed for an infinite amount of time (in our understanding)" - I'm not going to get into a debate over the existence of actual infinites, since it is irrelevant to the ontological argument. I simply used actual infinites as an example of something which only exists in the mind and not in reality. "I am not straw maning, the modal ontological argument does that." - A argument cannot strawman itself, that is absurd. "Necessary existence implies possible existence in modal logic" - No it doesn't. Describing something as being necessary does not automatically entail that it is possible. That is absurd. "If the only allowed “logical” answer is no. Then you defined god into existence." - Now you are confusing logical possibility with metaphysical possibility, in the same way you confused epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility. You really need to take some time to understand what the words of an argument mean before you try to critique the argument.

[@sharonmathew2225]

The one reason that I cannot agree with this argument is the first point. The first point is an opinion of the person who made the theory. All the other 6 points are only applicable to the one who believe in the first point. I believe, Many of the Atheist believe that, it is impossible to have an existence of a maximally great being. In fact, if anybody says that there is no such being, then he is wrongly assuming that he knows everything beyond human understanding. That is really a product of ignorance. I would say that, rather studying just this only argument, go through all of the other rational theories regarding the proof of the existence of God and try to understand God through those arguments like Cosmological argument, Teleological argument, moral argument and historical argument. This will give you an understanding into the existence of God. But to get the true understanding of the God of the bible, you should humble yourself before God to reveal himself to you. Because your finite mind cannot find him? That means he is not distant from you, He is closer than you think but he will reveal to those who search for him. Jeremiah 29:13 If you look for me wholeheartedly, you will find me.

[@oneplaneteer1708]

Regardless of using his strawman or your steel man. It's still useful only to those living off of tithing.

[@azophi]

I don’t believe in any ontological argument but I definitely admit some are easier to refute than others. No matter how you phrase it, though, I don’t think you can define something into actually physically existing. As in having predictable measurable effects

[@jackplumbridge2704]

"No matter how you phrase it, though, I don’t think you can define something into actually physically existing" - The modal ontological argument doesn't define anything into existence. I think you have misunderstood the argument.

[@azophi]

@@jackplumbridge2704 isn’t the modal one essentially 1. God is a maximally great bring by definition (by this 2. A maximally great being must exist (by definition of maximally great being) 3. God must exist Am I misunderstanding it?

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@azophi "Am I misunderstanding it?" - Yes. The first premise of the modal ontological argument is "It is possible that God exists". The problem with Anselm's version of the ontological argument is that he neglects to address the possibility of God's existence. If God's existence is POSSIBLE, then it follows that he actually exists, since it is logically impossible for a necessary being to be possible but not actual. Hence why the debate over the modal ontological argument occurs over the first premise: 1) It is possible that God (a maximally great being) exists. 2) If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world. (A possible world is a complete description of the way reality could have been) 3) If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in all possible worlds. (This is because of God's necessary existence. If he exists in one possible world, he must exist in all of them, as his necessary existence makes it impossible for him to fail to exist. Only a contingent being can exist in some possible worlds but not others, as only contingent beings have the possibility of not existing) 4) If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world. (The actual world is a possible world, if it was not possible, it could not be actual!) 5) Therefore, God exists in the actual world. 6) Therefore, God exists. Once you properly understand 3 key things, you will understand the modal ontological argument: 1) The definition of a maximally great being. 2) The difference between contingent existence and necessary existence. 3) What possible worlds are.

[@azophi]

@@jackplumbridge2704 alright So “if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then they exist in the actual world” Would it also hold that by contrapositive, if there exists a possible world where a maximally great being doesn’t exist, then God doesn’t exist by definition? Would premise 1 not literally be begging the question then? Like by definition, if a MGB (max great) doesn’t exist in the actual world, then it is not possible they exist. Premise 1 can basically then be sorta reworded as such: Premise 1) God exists.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@azophi "So “if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then they exist in the actual world”" - Yes, but you did miss the third premise "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds. "Would it also hold that by contrapositive, if there exists a possible world where a maximally great being doesn’t exist, then God doesn’t exist by definition? Would premise 1 not literally be begging the question then?" - If God did not exist in some possible world, the it would follow that he does not exist, yes. But there is no begging the question going on, and im not sure why you think that. Premise 1 states: It is possible that God exists. You then give reasons why that premise is true. You don't simply assume it is true because you already believe that God exists. This is no different to any other argument. For example: The universe began to exist. Is the second premise of the Kalam also begging the question? Of course not, you don't simply assume it is true, you give reasons why it is true. Going back to the first question, about God not existing in some possible world: You may have heard of the reverse ontological argument, which follows the same structure, but starts with: 1) It is possible that God does not exist. The problem with the reverse ontological argument, and the claim "it is possible God does not exist" in general, is that it is logically equivalent to the claim "it is impossible that God exists", since the only way a necessary being can possible not exist is if it is in fact an impossible being. So the claim "it is possible God does not exist" is not a modest claim, it is the most extreme claim you can make regarding a beings existence. "Premise 1 can basically then be sorta reworded as such: Premise 1) God exists." - Premise 1 states that God's existence is possible. The fact that this logically entails his actual existence does not mean the first premise is the assertion that God exists. That is the logical implication of God's possible existence.

[@OniLeafNin]

I really don't think Plantinga's version is very strong. I read Anselms version, and it makes more sense. If that than nothing greater can be thought does not have the property of existence, then it is not that than which nothing greater can be thought. Therefore because of the principles of logic, which does not leave room for real contradictions we say, "That than which nothing greater can be thought actually exists."

[@azophi]

I mean to me that does actually make more sense, but I think it still fails just with the island

[@OniLeafNin]

@@azophi what is funny is the island example is brought up in Anselm's proof, and Anselm shows why the island doesn't work, whereas his primary example does. I forget the details, however.

[@azophi]

@@OniLeafNin huh okay. Well yeah I think it does make more sense Though ultimately I don’t think you can just define something into causally affecting the real world… ever. I mean. You can define things into existence, that’s how math works. But … they don’t actually have effects on the real world etc. like they don’t really exist.

[@OniLeafNin]

@@azophi I understand the difficulty, I don't think this is an appealing argument. But I don't know if the premises are disproven, since the argument does not claim to cause existence by thought, but reasons from the subject to necessary attributes.

[@azophi]

@@OniLeafNin “a maximally great being to me would not endorse slavery” Guess yhwh doesn’t exist

[@pufthedragonCCS]

Is this the same argument that if infinite universes exists, than in one of them God exists, and therefore God exists in all of them?

[@freethinker4402]

I would like for some one to explain how minimal posibility translates to certainty

[@sanngyunlee4295]

Well normally it doesn't but in this case it does because it's a necessary thing

[@fantasyarch]

How is premise 2 and 3 justified?

[@andreassmith7773]

If something is possible, then clearly it must exist in some possible world. If a necessary being exists in some possible world, then by virtue of its necessity it must exist in all possible worlds.

[@vedinthorn]

@@andreassmith7773 correct. This is why the only defeater argument is that you must show that a maximally great being is impossible.

[@LawlessNate]

I have a way to restate premises 2 and 3 that I think are easier to understand. Think of premise 2 as being something to the effect of "A being that is capable of existing is superior to a being that is incapable of existing." and premises 3 as being something to the effect of "A being that actually exists is superior to a being that could exist but doesn't." You and I actually exist, so we are superior to anything that doesn't actually exist. Trying to suggest a maximally great being doesn't actually exist would make it lesser to us in that sense, as you and I do actually exist. Therefore, attacking premises 2 and 3 are actually attacking the very possibility of the notion of a maximally great being, IE it's actually an attack on premise 1 rather than truly an attack on premises 2 or 3.

[@fantasyarch]

But if something is possible, it doesn't mean that it exists. That jump is totally illogical. The jump from if it exists in one world it exists in all worlds is similarly absurd.

[@vedinthorn]

@@fantasyarch no one is making that jump.

[@derekardito2032]

It's a fucking big word "IF" , , The Ontological argument has one accepting an if as accepting god exist, then add flesh to the skeleton bare of bones.

[@nolangimpel39]

Honestly this argument just does not really do it for me. I've been very influenced by Dr Craig's work but this one has never really sold me

[@STREEEEEET]

Which premise doesn't sink in ?

[@spencergsmith]

@@STREEEEEET for me, it’s numbers 2 and 3. Just to be clear, I’m a Christian and regularly use the Kalam, fine tuning, and moral arguments in discussion.

[@STREEEEEET]

@@spencergsmith You need to understand the concept of possible world. In philosophy a possible world is not an alternative universe, it's a way that the world could've been if things were different. If you can conceive that a maximally great being exist in some possible world, then by the virtue of being maximal, it ought to exist in every possible world, including the actual world. Or else it's not a maximally great being since you can conceive of a being that is greater than the one that doesn't exist in every possible world. WLC has a good illustrated video about this argument. I think it will help if you watch it. Its 5 min.

[@Jockito]

Premise 1 is clearly the most questionable and unsupported

[@spencergsmith]

@@STREEEEEET I've watched it, and I understand it. I just don't find it nearly as convincing as the other arguments I mentioned.

[@ablazedguy]

If there is a God above all, than that God can't logically be part of any world. God doesn't merely exist inside of world, the argument makes no sense

[@tomdebevoise]

One again, WLC shoots himself in the foot with absurd statements, as others point out, "not about imagination it's about what you think is possible." Wow, Steve only needs to paraphrase Craig to make his arguments absurd. He should really write a script and use a teleprompter. You can add this to a lost of stoopid WLC quotes including "If there is a one chance in a million..." etc.

[@tomdebevoise]

@C L thanks for the sympathy. I guess your philosophy is that the god of the Bible 14 billion years ago created the universe along with trillions of galaxies, billions of exoplanets then on our planet. through supernatural means created Adam and Eve, original sin, then many civilizations, each having many gods only to impregnate a human to make his only son (like Hercules, Romulus and many others) so he could make a blood sacrifice (the Greek gods ate their children) to cure a condition he created (sin). All of this documented bu the writers of the Bible, who did not know where the moon went at night,

[@mjdillaha]

Oddly you’re making the same mistake rationalityrules makes, failing to understand the difference between metaphysical and epistemological possibility.

[@tomdebevoise]

@@mjdillaha if there is a one in a million chance that could be true...

[@mjdillaha]

@@tomdebevoise you’re again making another mistake that rationalityrules made, not understanding the use of exaggeration. 0 for 2.

[@kenandzafic3948]

And in the end you didn't refute the argument. The fact is that there is no evidence that God is metaphysically impossible while intuitively it seems like a perfectly coherent idea and that is quite enough for the argument to be valid to make the existence of God more likely than non-existence.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

I thought that the Ontological Argument was this: I think something exists, therefore it does exist.

[@jeremykoehnlein2158]

Yeah pretty much. As long as it’s “great” enough, apparently it becomes necessary.

[@InfinityExt]

Yall act like your straw mans are the real deal Logic all over the floor like jam, like slogans just burst in the door You started wrecking these strawmen worse than before Atheist were first logical, then started throwing logic over furniture

[@MBarberfan4life]

Rationality Rules? More like Irrationality Rules. lolz

[@josephpostma1787]

How so?

[@moderncaleb3923]

Sophism rules more like it

[@petromax4849]

Defining "God" as "something that exists in all possible worlds" is not enough to prove that there is such a thing. Why can't there be two possible worlds with zero overlap, so that anything that exists in one does not exist in the other? More importantly, perhaps; when did the God you believe in ever define himself as maximally great, and when did he give you a list of properties that make one great? If he never did those things, how can you justify making up your own definition of 'God' that goes beyond what God has actually said about himself?

[@ClickOkYT]

love > hate => then God is maximally great in love (omnibenevolence) knowledgment > ignorance => then God is maximally great in knowledgment (omniscience) power > weakness => then God is maximally great in power (omnipotence) : then you follow this logic and you will get the "a list of properties that make one great". And about "... that goes beyond what God has actually said about himself" at least the God from Christianism has all these attributes in the Holy Bible. And this is an evidence about "the only one true God" (but this is a matter to another discussiong)

[@Christi_Bellator]

Ummm... Go read on Alvin Platigas paper on it. I think the argument is sound. But God would have the property of "necessity". Theist argue that God is a necessary entity, not a contingent entity, or impossible entity but a necessary entity. Also the Theist apply these Great Making Properties to this Maximally Great Being that they call GOD is because of the Holy Book that they believe is inspired by God.

[@petromax4849]

@@ClickOkYT "at least the God from Christianism has all these attributes in the Holy Bible" That's exactly what I'm questioning. Where and when did God ever claim to be 'maximally great' or define himself as a list of attributes? You can't just say that because God is loving he must be maximally loving, according to your own arbitrary concept of 'maximally loving', or that because he's knowledgeable he must be maximally knowledgeable. Even if God said he is more loving than anyone else that would not imply at all that he is maximally or necessarily so.

[@petromax4849]

​@@Christi_Bellator Where could I find that paper? I don't see why God would be need to be necessary in the sense of existing in all 'possible worlds'. It seems the only way you could argue that is to say that God _does_ exist and always has, so that there was never a time when it was possible for him to not exist.

[@kristheobserver]

Not sure how that could work. For example one possible world would have numbers ( a necessity as there is at least one world) but your other opposite world numbers would not exist , but it would be one world so that is contradictory. Another issue I see is that a possible world would need space, but how could it's opposite world both exist and not have space. That again seems contradictory.

[@michaelmcintyre3871]

"It's not about imagination it's about what you think is possible." What you think is possible = imagination Your 'refutation' just confirmed that he described it accurately.🤣🤣🤣 Also, what you think is possible is meaningless if you cannot demonstrate that possibility. And no theist has ever actually demonstrated even the possibility for a 'maximally great being's let alone the actuality.

[@Jockito]

The only thing I've ever heard WLC say in defense of the possibility of a maximally great being is that it's not logically incoherent. But even if one grants that, that doesn't mean it is metaphysically possible. For all we know it might not even be metaphysically possible for a being to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipresent, all-loving, all-merciful, all-just, etc.

[@A_Yo_brown]

What you imagine doesn’t imply possibility. I can imagine a square circle, doesn’t mean it is possible. The only thing you have to show if something is possible is to show if there’s no logical contradictions like a square circle. And there are no explicit contradictions or incoherences with a maximally great being. If you believe it is not possible then highlight the logical contradictions.

[@Jockito]

@@A_Yo_brown you seem to be confusing logical possibility for metaphysical possibility. Just because something is logically coherent doesn't mean it is metaphysically possible. That's what you need to demonstrate to prove premise 1.

[@MBarberfan4life]

Wrong. Imagining something is NOT the same thing as conceiving something; thus, there isn't an identity relationship between possibility and imagination. Craig himself has talked about this, so you should go review that. "Also, what you think is possible is meaningless if you cannot demonstrate that possibility." What does that mean? What do you mean that it's "meaningless"? What's meaningless? Are you saying the words don't even make sense? Is it "meaningless" that you ate cereal this morning unless you can "demonstrate" that to me? "And no theist has ever actually demonstrated even the possibility for a 'maximally great being's let alone the actuality." Dimestore new atheist assertions---blind assertions.

[@jeremykoehnlein2158]

@@MBarberfan4life I can conceive of a maximally great unicorn. Are you gonna worship my unicorn now?

[@mystery6411]

Rationality Rules is an old school Rock and Roll kid who loves listening to sweet child or entering sandman. He should stick to that because he sucks so bad at philosophy.

[@Jewonastick]

You can't handle that he's exposing the frauds of your beloved wlc...

[@mystery6411]

@@Jewonastick beloved? Ew, i don't even follow WLC. and he exposed himself in this video not the other way around. He made himself looked like a fool.

[@pepedestroyer5974]

Rationality Drools!

[@orange9399]

This is my favourite argument for God because it also proves that God is good!

[@theoskeptomai2535]

This argument isn't sound.

[@Tobi_237]

@@theoskeptomai2535 Strong claim there, care to back up your claim with, I dunno, some EVIDENCE?

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@Tobi_237 The argument isn't sound. Do you know what constitutes a sound argument? Yes or no.

[@jonathanbarrell82]

They are asking why you think it's not sound. You have to have a reason

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@jonathanbarrell82 Premise 2 cannot be demonstrated to be true. The verity of any premise can be established if and only if the premises is 1) axiomatic; 2) deduced logically from two other and independent veritable statements presented within the same argument (prior premises) by means of the rules proper inference; 3) can be demonstrated to be true; 4) are generally accepted to be true by the vast majority of accredited experts (Scientific Theories as example), or 5) can be considered factual by other verified means ensuring validity, authenticity, and accuracy.

[@chimp09]

The fact that some apologists think this argument is worth anything more than ridicule, is what convinces me that they are not after truth but whatever feels comforting for them.

[@tomdebevoise]

Actually, apologist try to comfort the Christians with doubts and cognitive dissonance. They throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks.

[@chimp09]

@@tomdebevoise Hehe, you could certainly look at is that way. Yes. But that would mean they think it is worth something more than ridicule. :p

[@tomdebevoise]

@@chimp09 My theory is that many apologists don't actually believe in any of this BS. They are making a living. Before he died, Christopher Hitchens was working on a story that Billy Graham actually knew he was spreading nonsense and he had been making near-death bed confessions to his care givers. Alas, the story was never finished. Now there are organizations like the clergy project that support people who cannot lie anymore.

[@chimp09]

@@tomdebevoise Haha, yeah. You hear that alot. I actually think WLC specifically is a bit complicated. I wouldn't say that he is too dumb to understand his opponents, but he kinda always misses the point any atheist ever makes. I would say that is because of his narcistic tendencies, that make him unable to reflect on the things he said. Either that or he is so clever and so dishonest, that he acts like he misses the points and makes the act believable.

[@jeremykoehnlein2158]

@@chimp09 as far as I can tell, Craig is smart enough to realize he can’t argue actual objections, so he dodged. It’s certainly possible he’s genuinely mistaken, but there have been moments that he seems to almost “get it”.

[@jh5672]

There is no need for any argument. Existence is an absurdity without the existence of the one who created it.

[@jh5672]

@@PravoslavniMetal no we really don’t. First you must give a reason to reject the theory. There is no reason. IE: evolution being debunked at every step. AND: the only reason one does not want to honor the creator is to continue in their immoral lifestyle without fear of judgement. But there will be judgement some day. We can all count on that! Take care.

[@therick363]

_existence is an absurdity without the existence of the one who created it_ That how many feel about it sure okay. But that doesn’t demonstrate or prove the existence of “the one who created it”. _first you must give a reason to reject the theory_ Which one? Want to make sure. _IE evolution being debunked at every step_ The theory being evolution or something else? Because the theory of evolution has not been debunked at all. _the only reason one does not want to honor the creator is to continue in their immoral lifestyle_ Completely false.