August 21, 2019
  • 9:14 pm Alabama law reins in religious boot camps
  • 9:14 pm Religious Accommodation Policy Changes
  • 9:14 pm Racism, School Desegregation Laws and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States
  • 9:14 pm President Obama Participates in a Fireside Hangout on Google+
  • 9:14 pm The Terrifyingly Effective Nazi De-Bollocker
Anselm & the Argument for God: Crash Course Philosophy #9


Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you
by Squarespace. Squarespace: share your passion with the world. It’s about time that we had a serious talk
about religion. The philosophy of religion is often confused with theology, which makes sense, because they both take God and religion as their subjects. But theology starts by assuming that God exists,
and then figures out what follows. Or theology might try to solve philosophical problems that might arise from a belief in God. But one thing that’s never on the table
in theology is simply not believing in God. Atheism is not an option. This is what separates the philosophical study
of religion from the theological. Philosophers take nothing as a given – and
that includes religious belief. Everything is on the table, and everything
needs an argument. So, no area of belief is sacred, and that means even your sacred beliefs are going to need to be examined, and evidence will need to be given. Some people say religion is the one area where you don’t need arguments – that faith alone is enough. But philosophers don’t take faith for an
answer. After all, I might have faith that the moon
is made of green cheese. So what? Faith is definitionally unprovable, which makes it,
from a philosophical perspective, not valuable. So, if you’re a theist, now’s the time to offer some justification for your religious beliefs. And if you’re an atheist, it’s time for
you to pay attention too. No one’s off the hook – we all need to pay attention to these arguments, because religion is hugely important. Can you think of many things that have been as influential in shaping history than religious belief? Probably not. So if we can get to the
bottom of it, we should. [Theme Music] I’ll get to God in a minute. But first I want to go over a few other things
that the philosophy of religion is not: It’s not about believing whatever your parents
taught you. Because that doesn’t prove anything about
the truth of a religious belief. If how you were raised proved something about religious truth, then every religion – and therefore also no religion – would be true. So, how you were raised can give you a reason that you hold a certain belief, but it says nothing whatsoever about its truth. Philosophy of religion is also not the study of the Bible, because you can’t use what’s written in a book to prove the truth of the book. You need outside evidence. There’s a whole area of scholarship devoted to understanding the Bible, by considering the time and place in which it was written. And such study can be very helpful in understanding
certain things about religion. But it doesn’t help us here. Philosophy of religion is also not religious anthropology, or religious sociology, or a psychological understanding of our reasons for religious belief. Those are all things you can study, but they
are not what we’re studying here. What we are doing is considering whether we can offer arguments in support of belief in God’s existence. And a long time ago, there was a man who argued that God’s existence is provable: 11th century French monk Anselm of Canterbury. He offered a deductive argument for the existence of God, based on what he understood to be the nature of God’s being, or the definition of God. Because the study of being is called ontology, this argument, and others like it, are called ontological arguments. Now: What do you think God is like? Long, flowing white beard, robe to match? Nice guy, hard to reach on the phone? Well, Anselm aimed a little bit higher. In fact, he thought that God is, by definition,
the best possible thing we can imagine. THE. BEST. THING. Just try to think of the coolest, awesomest,
most amazing and wonderful thing you can imagine. And whatever you’re thinking of, Anselm
said that God is better. He’s just the best. In Anselm’s words, God is “that than which
no greater can be conceived.” So what does that mean? Well, it means God must exist, according to
Anselm. After all, he pointed out, there are just
two ways in which something can exist. Something can exist only in our minds and
be strictly imaginary – like Santa, or unicorns. Or it can exist in our minds but also in reality, like pizza and horses – something that we can imagine, but that’s also real. Anselm pointed out – and he does appear to be right about this – that any good thing would be better if it existed in reality as well as in our minds. I mean: unicorns.
They’re pretty great. But wouldn’t they be better if they were
real? Or the perfect romantic partner: smart, funny, hot, likes the same movies and games that you do? Pretty rich? Would be pretty nice in your mind, but EVEN
BETTER if they actually existed. Well Anselm thought so too. And from there, he believed he could prove
God’s existence. Because, if we define God as the greatest thing we can conjure up in our minds, the only thing that could possibly be greater than him would be – a real version! And since we’re already imagining the greatest thing possible, there can’t be anything better. Therefore, God has to exist, both in my imagination
and in reality! Anselm was sure he had done it – deductively proven God’s existence in a way that was immune to error. Here it is, one more time,
laid out as a philosophical argument: God is the greatest thing we can think of. Things can exist only in our imaginations,
or they can also exist in reality. Things that exist in reality are always better
than things that exist only in our imaginations. If God existed only in our imaginations, he wouldn’t be the greatest thing that we can think of, because God in reality would be better. Therefore, God must exist in reality. Anselm thought this was a tidy little argument. But one of his contemporaries, a fellow French
monk named Gaunilo, wasn’t satisfied. He suggested that we could run the same line of reasoning to prove the existence of literally anything we can imagine. He came up with an argument with the exact same formal structure as Anselm’s, to prove that a mythical Lost Island exists. He proposed: The best island I can imagine is one where I can swim and relax on a tropical beach and ski down snow-covered mountains all in one afternoon. I can imagine it, so it must exist. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be the best island – there would be one better and that one would have to be real! Basically, Gaunilo said, you could make the same kind of argument to prove the existence of whatever you wanted most – but it wouldn’t make it real. Anselm responded to Gaunilo’s criticism by saying he’d missed the point, that the argument only works for necessary beings, of which there is only one – God. Folks, what we have right here is a classic example of the fallacy known as begging the question. A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, something
that weakens or destroys an argument. And when you beg the question, you assume the very thing you’re trying to prove with your argument. By adding this idea of “a necessary being” to his definition of God, Anselm makes God’s existence a part of the definition of God. A necessary being is one that must exist, so Anselm’s response assumed the very point of contention to be true – that God exists! Other philosophers since Anselm have tried to save his argument by tweaking it in various ways, and dissenters have continued trying to deflate them. One of the most famous objections came hundreds of years after Anselm’s time, from the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant offered the point that, as he put it,
“existence is not a predicate.” A predicate is just something that’s said
of another object. And Kant thought Anselm’s mistake was in thinking that existence is something that can be predicated upon a thing, or be used as a defining characteristic. For example, if a triangle exists, it necessarily
has 3 sides. But it could be that no triangle exists at
all. Because the idea of existence isn’t part
of how we define a triangle. Likewise, Kant would say, if God exists, then he must be the greatest being we can imagine – but that doesn’t mean that he does exist. Predicates add to the essence of their subjects, Kant explained, but they can’t be used to prove their existence. British philosopher John Wisdom came up with a thought exercise that sounds a lot like like a debate over an ontological argument. It’s called The Parable of The Invisible Gardener, which brings us to this week’s Flash Philosophy. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Person A and Person B return to a garden after a long absence, and notice that a few of its plants are still thriving. Person A says, a gardener must have been tending
the garden while they were gone. Person B doubts this is true, so they agree
to wait and see if a gardener shows up. After some time passes, they see no one, so
Person A says: “The gardener must be invisible!” So, they put up traps and bring in bloodhounds
to catch him. When no one is found, Person A says the gardener
must be intangible as well as unsmellable. To which “B” replies: “What’s the difference between an invisible, intangible, unsmellable, entirely undetectable gardener and no gardener at all?” Thanks, Thought Bubble! Can you guess who A and B are really talking
about? To give you a sense of just how long this
back-and-forth has been going on among philosophers – trying to either prove or disprove the
existence of God – John Wisdom came up with this parable in 1944, nearly a thousand years after Anselm and Gaunilo. Today we introduced a new area of philosophy
– philosophy of religion. And we learned about Anselm’s argument for God’s existence, while also considering objections to that argument. An important point to note here is that both Gaunilo and Kant agreed with Anselm’s conclusion – they also believed in God’s existence. They just thought Anselm’s argument didn’t
prove it. So remember, you can think an argument fails,
even if you accept the conclusion. When this happens, you should look for a better
argument in favor of your conclusion. This is exactly what Thomas Aquinas did, and
we’ll consider him next time. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs
or online stores for you and your ideas. Websites look professionally designed regardless
of skill level, no coding required. Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse
for a special offer. Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association
with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check
out some amazing shows like: Shanks FX, It’s Okay To Be Smart, and The
Art Assignment. This episode of Crash Course was filmed in
the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.

Otis Rodgers

RELATED ARTICLES

100 COMMENTS

  1. Malaclypsis Posted on May 12, 2019 at 11:56 am

    The entire question about the existence of a god or gods is a non-question and as non-question as the question dealing with the existence of a fnord or fnords,…
    No rational mind will ever take a position of claiming of having a belief or lack of belief in the existence of a fnord/fnords, .. whether fundamentalistically or
    militantly,… and measure that belief or lack of belief in the scale of 1-7,…

    Reply
  2. Joshua Jones Posted on May 16, 2019 at 10:47 am

    "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty."1 Corinthians 15:14 New King James Version (NKJV)
    Faith is definitionally unprovable? (1:07) "Question your sacred beliefs" applies to all of us.

    Reply
  3. Thomas Milburn Posted on May 17, 2019 at 5:13 pm

    I prefer William Rufus

    Reply
  4. Gilbert Soup Posted on May 17, 2019 at 10:59 pm

    So, saying god exists is logically equivalent to saying triangles smell pink?

    Reply
  5. BlacksmithTWD Posted on May 18, 2019 at 3:55 pm

    Anselm's conclusion is right, but what he did is not so much make an argument for god, but instead defined 'god' and 'best' in a way that the only possible god is a god that exists.
    in simple terms it is something like this:
    Premise 1 : God is the best thing we can think of (of course this premise has to be true if one chooses to define god like this)
    premise 2 : things that are not only thought of, but are also real, are better than things that are just being thought of (of course this premise is also true, since it's based on the how things that are best are being defined,)
    conclusion: No matter what you can think of as being best, if it isn't real, it's not actually better compared to something real, so the 'second best thing' that actually is real, is the actually best thing. Note though that under these premises, even the worst thing that can be thought of that is real, is considered to be better than the best thing that can be thought of that isn't real.(if upholding these definitions for god and best, if you change the definitions you make a changing the goalpost fallacy, though the conclusion can change as soon as someone happens to uphold a different definition on god or better)

    Reply
  6. Nicholas Graham Posted on May 18, 2019 at 8:45 pm

    Am I wrong in think that some things can be worse in reality than they are in imagination, Satan (as the so-called opposite to God) for example? Would this bring down the whole argument?

    Reply
  7. Andy KnightWarden Posted on May 19, 2019 at 5:10 am

    I've noticed something. Everyone I've seen recently that mentions the word 'faith' equates it with believing in something. Originally, 'faith' meant 'acting on something you believe to be true.' It was a measure of action, not of belief.

    Reply
  8. Sikandar Karim Posted on May 19, 2019 at 11:18 am

    This guy is so smart like think about it

    Reply
  9. amelia Posted on May 19, 2019 at 5:15 pm

    my rs exam is tomorrow can anyone recommend any other sites/videos to help me cram?

    Reply
  10. Stephen Mancuso Posted on May 20, 2019 at 2:15 pm

    You can use what’s written in a book to prove something, books are condensed knowledge, if you want to justify that knowledge as truth, you need outside evidence. I’m not convinced of this at all. God is spaceless, timeless and immaterial, it is going to be tough to find evidence you would find convincing if you define things foolishly. You have defined things incorrectly, if we say we can’t know anything from a book, get ready to throw away huge swaths of History. Some things are an investigation into the past that someone else has seen, one day there won’t be any way to prove the holocaust happened outside of what is written, if you don’t take written knowledge seriously then you might concluded hitler never existed, tread carefully my friend.

    Reply
  11. Ted Forbes Posted on May 20, 2019 at 6:27 pm

    God does exist in reality, as powerful nations and influential individuals! Whatever it is said that the god of the mind and heart can do for you or for the most favorites of us all, so can powerful nations and individuals. But in return we allow them to rip us off in masses, taking from the poor to feed their existence. No different from the god of the mind and heart.

    Reply
  12. J 11 Posted on May 20, 2019 at 8:06 pm

    Faith is is not a religious argument. Faith means a belief in anything. You can have faith in money, power, technology or God. It simply means what you believe in.

    Reply
  13. Jin J Posted on May 21, 2019 at 12:23 pm

    The intro slide/ title slide is so well made

    Reply
  14. Nathan Ness Posted on May 22, 2019 at 9:15 pm

    Wait, you look… different…

    Reply
  15. Nathan Ness Posted on May 22, 2019 at 9:28 pm

    That island does exist… in British Columbia 🙂

    Reply
  16. HoubaBouba Posted on May 24, 2019 at 3:39 am

    [email protected] what's God like? Nice guy, hard to reach on the phone.

    Reply
  17. Lbpc2 2 Posted on May 26, 2019 at 10:28 pm

    I miss crash course mythology

    Reply
  18. Amber Martinez Posted on May 28, 2019 at 12:02 am

    I believe God is the best thing that you could imagine, but why then must God be real?.. It's because humans can't think of anything that was never put into their "mist". Like an painter, sculpture… you may look at their work and say no1 has ever created such great work. True, maybe in the way the artist designed it. But the colors are colors we've all seen before. Also the shapes are shapes we've all seen before. We can't imagine something never seen before. God, says the scriptures was never seen. That's why we can't imagine his form. Angles it reads went to [heaven], meaning the sky, [up]… the only thing we've ever seen go up were things with wings is why air plans were designed that way. So, we imagine the angles as looking like men with wings.

    Reply
  19. Ted Bates Posted on May 28, 2019 at 4:42 am

    The Bible is self authenticating. It makes hundreds of prophecies that have been fulfilled exactly. There are 509 prophecies about the end times. These prophecies are being fulfilled before our eyes. Israel has prophecied to be dispersed throughout the world but would return to their homeland. Thus includes Isaiah 11:11-12, Ezekiel 36:25-28, Ezekiel 37, Amos 9:12-15, Jeremiah 32:25-32, 33:25, Isaiah 66:8…. The Bible said that the universe had a beginning in Genesis 1:1, and that God stretched and still stretches out space which is confirmed by modern astronomy. The big bang or expanding universe was described by prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah over 2,500 years ago. My late Dad a bright physicist in His late years read things I shared with Him. I asked him if he understood what he was reading and He said, "Yes you are proving the existence of God." The evidence is so powerful that astronomers like Fred Hoyle, and Paul Davies who choose to disbelieve have said that the evidence for a universe designed for humanity's existence is so compelling as to be indisputable. Jesus fulfilled over 350 prophecies with His First Advent and prophecies happening right now are compelling for His soon return.

    Reply
  20. Internet Quality Police Posted on May 28, 2019 at 5:47 pm

    square space can suck my balls.

    Reply
  21. Igor Zimin Posted on May 30, 2019 at 3:27 am

    So I am reading Jung's Psychological Types, and I am at the part where he writes about Ontological argument. I am reading these few pages – where he is writing about Anselm's argument and Kant's argument – for almost a month and cannot really understand fully what is Kant saying? Its really difficult, and either I lack intelligence or I missed learning in school, but I cannot grasp it. Or maybe it is so simple and I understand everything, but I am cannot believe how simple it is and I think I don't get it because of that. So as far as I understood from this video, and from the book – Anselm's position is – physical (sensual) things can exist in reality and in abstract world, and Kant's point of view is – physical (sensual) things can exist in reality, but they do not exist in abstract world, because (or unless) they cannot be perceived by our physical senses? So Kant basically says – You can imagine anything, but it does not mean it physically exist just because you imagined it, you need to prove it exists by method that is agreed by everyone (basically scientific method). I am actually sleepy now and maybe missed something, but can somebody explain to me did I understand the basics at least to some degree correctly?

    Reply
  22. Ши Владимир Posted on May 30, 2019 at 11:49 am

    God is an individual concept of coping with this world. Coping mechanism could be functional and not. Functional coping mechanisms are more efficient than not functional. If god is functional mechanism of coping, therefore god must exist.

    Reply
  23. Bubble Burster Posted on June 2, 2019 at 9:20 pm

    Things that exist in reality are always better than things that exist only in our imagination?
    I don't think that is universally true.
    I don't agree with any premise regarding the "maximally great being". If you inserted the word "not" or "doesn't" into each premise to reverse it, it'd be just as logically sound.

    Reply
  24. thunder thumbs96 Posted on June 3, 2019 at 6:35 am

    How do i get one of those gardeners?

    Reply
  25. Michael Posted on June 3, 2019 at 2:13 pm

    anyone else here before their A-Level philosophy exam tomoz???

    Reply
  26. smoko ono Posted on June 3, 2019 at 7:44 pm

    I realise this is a tad pernickety, but Anselm didn't seek to prove God, with his ontology he sought to prove that already existing faith in a divine being is rational and makes sense logically. So to say he 'deductively proved God's existence' isn't accurate…

    Reply
  27. Claire Posted on June 4, 2019 at 2:45 am

    This video although seems unbiased kinda is. The conclusion ends very much, giving you no other option, not to say god exists. And that's because they haven't fully given both sides of the argument. Although it's tough to make and explain a philosophy video with hundreds of years worth of conversation over one topic, this video does not do justice to the ontological argument. and you can very much tell that hank has already come up with his end decision. Whereas you should really leave it more up to the viewer to chose.

    Reply
  28. Oscar Dee Posted on June 4, 2019 at 8:58 pm

    If one beliefs that all this just happened then one must believe that this channel just happened. Is the greatest thing as powerful as the worst thing?

    Reply
  29. pangman77 Posted on June 5, 2019 at 12:08 pm

    This whole video is a strawman argument

    Reply
  30. Justin Tarr Posted on June 6, 2019 at 6:43 am

    I enjoy a lot of his videos but frankly 0:55–1:09 is patently false and really exposes the disingenuous of his supposed neutrality. Philosophers, or at least the honest/consistent ones, understand that faithlessness is an actual impossibility and it is not only valuable but necessary for even basic philosophy. I do not care to deeply explain this, but epistemology brought us to the "Münchhausen trilemma" that showed that it is impossible for us to truly know anything without faith.

    For an example of my point, we cannot prove the validity of logic itself because such a proof would require logic within the proof itself and thus acts as a circular argument that is inherently a fallacy.

    A faithless life is impossible, and anyone who says otherwise either doesn't take seriously the epistemological problems of truth seeking, is dull, is a liar, or all three.

    Reply
  31. Bill WattsUpWithThat Posted on June 7, 2019 at 4:04 pm

    What an annoying voice.

    Reply
  32. S Singh Posted on June 8, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    God is formless so the Consciousness. The Consciousness is the God. There is nothing prior to the Consciousness. The Consciousness is the ultimate reality. Think about it!

    Reply
  33. S Singh Posted on June 8, 2019 at 7:18 pm

    The Consciousness is not a philosophy. It is your true nature. Without the Consciousness you would not know anything; because without the Consciousness you would not exist at all. In fact without the Consciousness whole universe ceases to exist.

    Reply
  34. Shem Watuma Posted on June 9, 2019 at 5:31 pm

    at 4:47, "Things can only exist in our imaginations or in reality". If we gather all the things that exist in our imaginations and also those that exist in our reality, does it mean that nothing else exists outside this set? What about the imaginations we have not yet created in our minds or the realities we have not yet discovered? If my question is by any means reasonable, how can there be a greatest in this set that is incomplete and expanding every time an imagination is created in a mind or a reality is discovered?
    In order to be a greatest, the set must be complete. Say for example someone imagined something to be greater than God, that thing would now be the God. That makes the greatest thing subject to our imagination.

    Reply
  35. MLOOOKE1119 KSA Posted on June 9, 2019 at 8:51 pm

    لا يمكن للعقل اثبات وجود الإله
    حسنا
    أيضا لا يمكن للعقل أن يثبت عدم وجود الإله
    الإيمان بالاله هو الضمانة الوحيدة للدين
    وكما قال باسكال بامكانك عدم الإيمان بالاله
    ولكن إذا اكتشفت وجوده بعد الموت
    حينذاك ستكون خسارتك كبيرة جدا
    حتى في الحياة الدنيا نحن لانحصل على كل ما نريد وقد لا نحصل على اي شئ منها
    قد نكون معوقين أو مشوهين أو مرضى نفسيين أو مختلين عقليا
    أو فاسدين اخلاقيا أو قتلة أو عنصريين ماذا بقي ؟
    لا احد حتى رئيس امريكا
    يستطيع أن يفعل لنا شيئا
    العقل لايستطيع أن يثبت أو ينفي
    الحرية محدودة
    اذن
    حياة ناقصة هنا
    وحياة كاملة هناك
    هذا هو اختياري

    Reply
  36. Aryan Hegde Posted on June 9, 2019 at 8:57 pm

    Wait why'd I think of Morgan Freeman

    Reply
  37. freddie rhapsody Posted on June 11, 2019 at 12:18 pm

    i was wondering , in one of the videos with the shaving puzzle , the barber had to shave every man who did not shave himself , did the barber have to shave himself ? , the barber was considered as part of the group and eventually he had to shave himself .why do you need outside evidence ? the barber was capable of shaving others and himself , cant anyone be capable or qualified to prove themselves , in other words why cant the bible prove its true ? . i recently left islam and using education to build up a character for myself away from any religion

    Reply
  38. Andrea Ngasha Posted on June 14, 2019 at 4:16 pm

    woooaaaah '' hard to reach on the phone '

    Reply
  39. TheGreaser9273 Posted on June 14, 2019 at 11:07 pm

    What about plantinga’s formulation? The onto logical argument is back with a vengeance.

    Reply
  40. Natsu Dragnell Posted on June 15, 2019 at 1:40 pm

    Man you guys must really want to die huh

    Reply
  41. Mark Anthony Posted on June 17, 2019 at 5:16 am

    Find a better argument to support your conclusion? Didn't the last video just talk about how that's a bad thing? #8 was all about theory's

    Reply
  42. Zeus Posted on June 17, 2019 at 8:48 am

    I'm glad to see no creationist nuts down here

    Reply
  43. Zeus Posted on June 17, 2019 at 8:57 am

    These basic arguments should be taught in schools.. that way we'll have less dogma in secular spaces

    Reply
  44. Fivedriedgramsinsilence Posted on June 18, 2019 at 11:36 pm

    God can't be even good or fine. A simple look at the world, to the history and biology, already refutes this.

    Reply
  45. Soren Olsen Posted on June 20, 2019 at 7:22 pm

    One of the biases that the presenter brings to the table is assuming that everything around us is real and that there isn't the smallest chance that everything around us is fake. In ignoring that it ignores the fact that EVERYONE takes everything on faith and there isn't a strong line of reality and objectivity unless you believe in it. Because you were RAISED to believe in it, so you tell others to believe in it and so the platform is unfair from the start.

    Reply
  46. MAX POWER Posted on June 22, 2019 at 5:07 am

    Faith does have definition…..It's ….."Consistency"

    Reply
  47. JevvoBruv Posted on June 22, 2019 at 1:02 pm

    we gone got some gaps we don't understand, therefore gawd must have gone did it

    Reply
  48. Eoghan Connolly Posted on June 22, 2019 at 8:00 pm

    Anselm obviously begs the question in his response to Guanilo's – admittedly fairly shoddy – refutation of his argument for God. But it seems to me that Anselm is also begging the question in the argument itself. If God does not exist in reality, he says, then God would be less good than the God that exists in reality. But if no such God existed, then no such God would exist to be better than the imaginary God. See Anselm never entertains the idea that God does not exist in reality, the assumption that it does is a crucial part of his argument. That is begging the question. Or it looks a lot like it to me, anyway.

    Reply
  49. Bryan McCormick Posted on June 23, 2019 at 7:50 am

    our impression of god exists as influenced by the reality of him… rihanna is the illusion and all other material perfection

    Reply
  50. Mark Posted on June 23, 2019 at 11:03 pm

    I feel childish, I laughed every time he said the name Kant.

    Reply
  51. Saeed Abu-Bakar Posted on June 27, 2019 at 1:02 am

    God (Allah) is not anything compared to man. Nothing man can think of hence why he is known as God

    Reply
  52. Saeed Abu-Bakar Posted on June 27, 2019 at 1:15 am

    The Quran says from Arabic to English a simple 4 line definition of the almighty
    قل هو الله أحد( Say He is Allah the only and only)
    الله صمد (Allah is the absolute the eternal)
    The Arabic word Samad also means the one who is independent while others are dependent on him
    لم يلد ولم يولد (He does not beget nor was he begotton)
    ولم يكن له كفوا أحد (And nothing is comparable to him
    Al Quran surah Ikhlas chapter 112 verses 1-4
    quran-english-translation-clearquran-edition-a.pdf

    Reply
  53. Royal Ranger 25 Posted on June 27, 2019 at 2:46 pm

    What definition is being used for "faith"? It seems the generally assumed definition in the beginning is pretty narrow.

    Reply
  54. Joel Bridge Posted on June 28, 2019 at 7:46 am

    Philosophically faith is valuable for the fact we need everyday to live. man she didn't have faith in your partner and Promises vows laws people are sense etc.

    Reply
  55. Nikhil Agarwal Posted on June 29, 2019 at 6:09 am

    "Things that exist in reality also are better than things that exist only in our imaginations!"
    No wonder these people didn't make movies.

    Reply
  56. Frank Upton Posted on June 29, 2019 at 4:18 pm

    Since when were philosophers interested in evidence?

    Reply
  57. M.I.A. Posted on July 1, 2019 at 12:24 am

    I only believe in one God and that’s Kratos 😜

    Reply
  58. Lilli Chase Posted on July 1, 2019 at 5:51 am

    Santa isnt real?!

    Reply
  59. Ben Chermside Posted on July 6, 2019 at 2:43 am

    I thought that the people who just rely on fath where disproven by the baubull 🐟 fish

    Reply
  60. Logan Kendall Posted on July 9, 2019 at 11:00 pm

    Most of these arguments are dumb

    Reply
  61. Jeo Tambuon Orcullo Posted on July 10, 2019 at 2:52 am

    Who is the guy explaining? hahaha

    Reply
  62. Joseph Doss Posted on July 14, 2019 at 12:12 am

    Video not bad but need to work on philosophical ontological history a bit.

    Reply
  63. Fathomistic Fantasy Posted on July 14, 2019 at 7:22 pm

    I think its safe to say that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of such an entity as God. Lee Strobel tried to disprove the existence of Jesus Christ. Also known as Jesus of Nazareth. The only thing you can adequately conclude is either Jesus of Nazareth was either the most successful con artist or he was who he said he was. If he was the son of God then that would mean God exists. If he was not then he had successfully convinced millions to die for their religion. Either way you have to have belief/faith in one conclusion or the other.

    Reply
  64. kieron richardson Posted on July 15, 2019 at 3:28 am

    Fruit loop

    Reply
  65. Suzana Taha Posted on July 16, 2019 at 12:58 am

    who is the most associated with showing that ontological argument is mistaken ?

    Reply
  66. James Davis Posted on July 19, 2019 at 12:32 pm

    Is this a serious defense of religion or a god?

    Reply
  67. James Davis Posted on July 19, 2019 at 12:39 pm

    Faith alone is enough? Faith is ‘ the excuse people give when they have no good reason’ paraphrasing from Matt Dillahunty. I would would also qualify it as belief without any demonstrable evidence. Every religion fails to produce evidence that would prove the truth of their doctrines let alone prove the existence of their preferred supernatural deity. Anecdotes, scriptures, anonymous witness testimony I guess could count as ‘evidence.’ Just not the type of evidence that are demonstrable in the real world and can be independently verified. In other words it would not hold up to the most gentle of scientific scrutiny.

    Reply
  68. Clay Zirkle Posted on July 19, 2019 at 2:15 pm

    Provability – ability to replicate an outcome. You can't "prove" you had breakfast this morning. It is not a logical evaluation of the existence or non-existence of any deity. A murderer cannot be convicted on "proof", you can't replicate the murder. BUT — they're convicted based on evidence.

    Reply
  69. Arnold Pineda Posted on July 20, 2019 at 12:15 pm

    We believe that Air exists even though we do not see it or do not know its origin, but we can feel its presence that is why we know that air exists.

    Reply
  70. C Alex Posted on July 24, 2019 at 6:04 pm

    4:55 This, is, impeccable… The guy was mortal but his logic was bullet-proof.

    Reply
  71. Gerald Chua Posted on July 25, 2019 at 9:53 am

    Wrong definition of faith.

    Reply
  72. love child Posted on July 27, 2019 at 2:15 pm

    Jesus has a light that shines through you.

    Reply
  73. Snow Storm Posted on July 27, 2019 at 6:35 pm

    If you remove four sides from a square it stops existing. If you strip a thing of all its qualities and characteristics it suddenly ceases to exist; It was these very characteristics and qualities which generated its "being". The very inclination to make God infinite, undetectable and indivisible dissolves him into nothingness.

    Reply
  74. VioleTa Posted on July 28, 2019 at 8:53 pm

    Why not reading the Bible ? It's like saying study philosophy but don't read philosophy books.

    Reply
  75. VioleTa Posted on July 28, 2019 at 9:05 pm

    Where comes the SOUL from? Why do we love ? Philosophy agree there is: mind & body & soul, so please explain soul existence and role.

    Reply
  76. VioleTa Posted on July 28, 2019 at 9:12 pm

    You seems to agree with Renes Descartes about "genius" devil existance but now God seems to not exist if we dont see or imagine him.

    Reply
  77. VioleTa Posted on July 28, 2019 at 9:13 pm

    Why good and bad exists ???

    Reply
  78. Local Psycho Posted on July 28, 2019 at 10:43 pm

    This guy is talking fast bruh😂😂

    Reply
  79. Shane Sarabia Posted on July 28, 2019 at 11:32 pm

    Thats me. Duhhhhh tho

    Reply
  80. G Buz Posted on July 29, 2019 at 9:40 am

    I know I exist therefore God must exist too. Done, solved it, you can go back to your regularly scheduled program.

    Reply
  81. Cristian Szigyarto Posted on July 29, 2019 at 2:02 pm

    God will not prove his existance because he wants You to belive in him

    Reply
  82. Olaf Perez Posted on July 31, 2019 at 12:36 pm

    We were created different so everyone has a different god if they don' t evolve like we do they are fake myths created by man

    Reply
  83. Bato Abraham Posted on August 1, 2019 at 6:01 pm

    Philosophy is your own most of the time non fact based opinion telling us that we don't know nothing. I believe in knowledge, logic and reflection and our senses. Yes sometimes some of those can be wrong but most of the time they are reliable. Look at our modern society and what we accomplished no thanks to philosophy. Philosophy can work for questions like should I make macaroni or spagetti what will make me more happier… I am being silly but what I mean to all of you who don't believe in God. Don't let some people deside who never ever decide nothing really. Do your own research in this modern world full of godless people trying to for fill their life's with bunch of stuff to disstract them form the fact that you will die. Are you going to bet your only chance to seccsude. Listen to this there are not do overs and yes people made religion look and sound ridiculous but Religon and God is Nothing what we think. Where you end up is where you are supposed to be all along. There is no time for exploration. Do you think all this world all this life you just do what you want selfishly just to come and say sorry I didn't know. Nobody ever told me. When I read Quran and Bible I saw that God says there is One God and all 3 books are one religon. Jews, Christians and Muslims. All same prophets and same message. Sadly all was corruptted except Quran because it kept in original form word of God. Not Islam Islam is decided jn many religions but just the book Quran is completely different then what Islam is today. Open any page and read just one page and you will be amazed directly word of God. I am looking for original Bible in Hebrew because Allah meaning God In Arabic says follow all books and all books are send by One God. It's amazing and sad to see what people did. They decided us and made you Never wanna read anything because they wrote hundreds of books and call them religon all made up. But truth is something special once you read it you understand imidiatle no man can ever write anything so great and selfless so profound and helping so guiding and in lightning. Don't listen to nobody listen to God read on your own just little please don't let you pride or arrogance be in your way. Do God Exist? Really? Don't you feel you are eternal. Take a moment to reflect on perfection of life and circul and how all surve in our favor.

    Reply
  84. Bato Abraham Posted on August 1, 2019 at 6:39 pm

    Explanation!!!
    If you knew 100% one day you will go to hell 100% no doubt I bet all of you would give up all your money and dedicate your life in surving God. But because you don't know 100% you fall in to trap and the trap is going to reveal who you are as a person. Your desire, selfishness, greed. All those things can happen because you convince yourself there is not God so let's take all that you can take, enjoy the most that you can and don't worry about anything.
    That is how people work we convince ourself what we wanna believe so it suit us.
    You say oh look at religious people and the stupid things they do. Look at religion and how ridiculous it sound yes but it's all because people came up with their own sects and ideologis. I am a believer and I believe in all books of God. They all tell the same massage Quran, Bible, old testament. You have to be fool to deny it. Yes people are evil n liers n fools n they always will be. But it has nothing to do with God they don't represent God. Read original Bible in Hebrew or read Quran not other Islamic scripture but the Quran alone it is the world of God all other Islamic scripture were written 300 years after Quran and they are the bad once. Purfect way to distruct you from truth. There were always evil people who tryed to use religion to control people and they wrote bunch of crazy things. It's not part part of religion but they are part of religion and that's why you think religon don't sound reasonable. You are fools for dismissing God based on some dude on Facebook youtube or some people who call them selfs religious people. Once I read books on my own I saw how big liers people are. Do it on your own don't listen to people. This is your chance take it or leave it its up to you. Turn your head and convince yourself this is all some made up story or just read cople of pages out of original Quran and see what it says. You will see what God says. Muslims, Christians and jews are one people same religion divided by greedy evil people who want to control and power you know them they make your life's miserable every day. I am well educated everyday person living normal life I believe in God because God is true and you know it I know you know it. Don't you feel eternal? Please just open any page and read and see for yourself don't be arrogant.

    Reply
  85. WTF how bizarre Posted on August 2, 2019 at 1:33 pm

    Religious beliefs are a masses of people and culture control technology.
    Are you saying God is better than wet p***y? it is the best
    thing i can think of. Although the first thing came to mind wad pizza. Wet p***y tskes the cake
    over pizza anyday. Wait! God is a.shaved wet p***!!! Wow!!!
    i would eat Her up.

    Reply
  86. Victor Connor Posted on August 2, 2019 at 5:27 pm

    This was a bit disappointing, especially in Kant believing Anselm's conclusion. God is simply a concept that is not worth thinking much about simply because we are not equipped with the tools to do so. For instance, we all believe that some people are smarter than others. Well, if the god concept is true, then wouldn't god be infinitely smarter than any human! Likewise, aren't we almost infinitely smarter than an ant? Wouldn't god then be smarter than us as we are to an ant? Therefore, if god is infinitely smarter than us, how can we make any declaration about it at all? Are we concerned about ants talking about us??? If any of the gods exist, I would be disappointed in them if they were concerned what humans thought of them How concerned are we about what bacteria thinks of us?

    Reply
  87. Leon Maliniak Posted on August 4, 2019 at 12:16 pm

    LOGICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR GOD

    For those struggling with the concept of the existence of a CREATOR GOD and who do not want it rammed down your throat on the basis of the BLIND FAITH approach of religious dogma, perhaps this line of reasoning will help you make a more informed decision…not based on blind faith alone but on the FACTS that we do SEE.

    Speaking as a TRIAL LAWYER of thirty years and accustomed to always relying upon the BEST EVIDENCE, I have studied the arguments for and against the existence of a CREATOR GOD for many years and from the perspective of various scientific disciplines. There will still be some element of BLIND FAITH involved but it is also based on the INCONTROVERTIBLE, UNDENIABLE and IRREFUTABLE FACTS that we do see;

    Here is what I mean;

    I examined the EVIDENCE of the complexity of our magnificent DESIGN OF LIFE, and I see a machine with unlimited capacity for self repair and maintenance and with numerous back-up and FAIL SAFE systems. From there, and borrowing an expression from my thirty years as a trial lawyer, I came to the conclusion that;

    Based on the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE and on the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, it is much more LOGICAL to conclude that our DESIGN OF LIFE is the work of a CREATOR GOD or an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER rather then just the result of RANDOM chance and the mere passage of time.

    For example, when you examine our INNATE IMMUNE SYSTEM, one of TWO such systems that we have, the other being the ADAPTIVE immune system, you learn that it takes on average twenty (20 ) separate, distinct chronological steps, executed in perfect SEQUENCE, to illicit even one immune response. If a major system, like the LYMPH system FOR EXAMPLE, fails to eliminate lymph fluid in its normal way, it is backed up by a hidden fail-safe system which we are not even aware of and which will kick in and allow LYMPH to excrete through the skin.

    It makes no sense that such a complex DESIGN OF LIFE is merely the result of RANDOM CHANCE.

    What do the ‘evolutionist’ theorists want us to believe ? That a bolt of lightening hit a pile of doo-doo four billion years ago…and BINGO…here we are ? This is patent NONSENSE and violates plain COMMON SENSE. The MAIN arguments in the theory of EVOLUTION are so fragile that they can be dismissed with this simple argument;

    If EVOLUTION alone explains our existence then how come APES are still swinging in the trees ?Thee is no valid or convincing answer for this FLAGRANT CONTRADICTION within that ‘ theory’. President Johnson once said; ‘ you cannot SUCK and BLOW at the same time’ . Either we ‘ evolved’ from the more primitive APES or we did not. The fact that APES still exist or that they did not build skyscrapers before we did…cannot be explained by this theory unless they come up with another tortured and convoluted « exception « . There are MANY more examples of FLAWS in this theory or caveats but this is one alone is enough to discredit it.

    Another way to make this conclusion is to take a more enlightened view of the Universe as a whole and by saying; We are no longer primitive camel drivers and sheep herders. We can accept the concept that the GOD who created us or the INTELLIGENT DESIGNER is a real and physical being, possibly the leader of a very advanced civilization who did genetically create us in his OWN IMAGE…as it says. This means that our CREATOR GOD probably is a real, physical and tangible being and not some mystical, imaginary or intangible entity.

    I hope that this line of reasoning helps some of you to resolve this issue and to accept the idea that it is much more LOGICAL to conclude for the existence of a REAL and tangible CREATOR GOD then to think we are just an « accident » of time.

    Reply
  88. Aall Pprr Posted on August 4, 2019 at 10:32 pm

    ONLY FOR SMART PEOPLE: if you believe in god and you want to talk about it please write here

    Reply
  89. Bree Posted on August 6, 2019 at 11:16 pm

    I remember being so lost when I read his argument

    Reply
  90. Pretentious Ass Wipe Posted on August 7, 2019 at 7:18 pm

    for the life of me I do NOT see the logic behind the ontological argument. I wish someone can explain it to me because to me it doesn't make any damn sense. I don't understand how saying that God is better than the greatest thing you can imagine proves the existence of God. Someone PLEASE explain this to me, I REALLY want to understand it

    Reply
  91. Nugget of Truth - Eric King Posted on August 9, 2019 at 7:34 pm

    Great stuff…thanks.

    Reply
  92. KevBounce Posted on August 10, 2019 at 2:56 pm

    I can imagine 6 women licking my testicles and fighting over who’s going to ride me first…that would be better in reality… so that will really happen because I need it to.

    Reply
  93. Benjamin Moscatiello Posted on August 11, 2019 at 12:38 am

    Nothing really exists. Everything is empty space if you look at it closely . Empty space and electrical energy. God is the puppet master behind the world we perceive as real.. The universe is much more complicated than we will ever understand. Enjoy your cosmic dance.

    Reply
  94. Mark Pine Posted on August 12, 2019 at 12:12 pm

    I believe in God and karma. 🦄

    Reply
  95. red horizon Posted on August 13, 2019 at 4:56 am

    2:39 to skip the intro

    Reply
  96. woodchuck norris Posted on August 13, 2019 at 5:36 pm

    I noticed several fallacies in the ontological argument. Begging the question, false cause, slippery slope, and the genetic fallacies. With so many logical fallacies in the argument why do people still use it?

    Reply
  97. Gregory Edgerton Posted on August 13, 2019 at 6:59 pm

    Conception and percept may be two different things. I think they are not.
    In any event, the exercise of both indicates something of mind which is merely using both with something other than each.
    'Arguments' are facinating.

    Reply
LEAVE A COMMENT