Is the Ontological Argument Sound? (Interview with Dr. Ben Arbour)
Показать описание
Ben Arbour is a philosopher and expert on the Ontological Argument for God's existence. In this interview, we explore the version he thinks is best and cover several of the most popular objections.
condolence to his & his wife's bereaved loved ones, most especially the 4 children they left behind 🎉
nzsl
I am a Christian, but the Ontological argument has never made any sense to me. You cannot overcome the word “possible” to make it = “must”. To me it’s as simple as this. If in a *possible* world God exists; *then* He must exist in that world and every other possible world. But if it is likewise *possible* that there is a possible world where He does not exist; then if that possible turns out to be the *actual* world, then He never exists to be existent in the actual world or any other possible world since—in point of fact—He simply does not exist at all. (Anywhere.)
brockgeorge
May the soul of Ben Arbour and his wife through the mercy of God rest in peace. REQUIEM aeternam dona ei, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat ei. Requiescat in pace. Amen.
halleylujah
I love how Dr. Arbour explained his position(s) & how Camron knew how to ask the right questions. That's a skill he has in just about every interview I've seen that he's conducted, he's an excellent interviewer. Dr. Arbour is wearing a nice looking tie, that alone makes him right. 😉
Ahmathyah
Moses' revelation at Mt. Horeb is our first introduction to an argument from ontology: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD I was not known to them." (Exodus 6)
The capitalized form of "LORD" indicates the traditional translation in English of the ineffable Mosaic Hebrew theonym יהוה from the root verb "hayah" meaning "to be." That is, the Patriarchs understood God as the maximally great being "The Almighty", but Moses understood God as existence in and of itself or as Aquinas later writes, i.e.ipsum esse subsistens. Both Moses and the Patriarchs were correct, but Moses was more insightful.
andrewferg
I think that the whole argument falls on the word great. What do we mean by that? It seems a bit arbitrary. By which measure? It leaves us with a word game. Back to square one. Sad to hear of his passing btw.
aristhocrat
He lost me in the first 10 seconds. Religion is for clowns 🤡
barryslab
The irony is this level of deep thought is not required to know God exists.
justinharrell
Sending my wishes to the Arbour family right now.
GhostLightPhilosophy
1. God could possibly have created the Easter bunny as an ever present eternal being.
2. Therefore the Easter bunny exist in some possible world as an ever present being.
3. Since this Easter bunny is ever present it must therefore exist in all worlds.
4. Therefore the Easter bunny exist in our world.
See how easy it is when you use fallacy, misdirection and false linkage to fool people.
tor
The story of a god sacrificing himself to atone for the sins of humanity to which he created in the first place IS RIDICULOUS! An omnipotent BEING WOULD know that he cannot die and so therefore where is this great sacrifice ? And now he's in heaven with Yahweh his FATHER WAITING for the right time to fulfill his 2000 year promise of returning to earth and transforming it with his celestial kingdom which is overdue !
johnlinden
for me the ontological argument is just simple math, let pn be the probability of Gods existence in a possible world and p the possibility of Gods overall existence and n the number of independent possible worlds, therefore (1-p) = lim n-> inf: (1-pn)^n = 0, hence p=1
chrisMUC
(15:50) Dr. Arbour states that skeptics will not grant the possibility of God's existence, and are therefore being dishonest. Arbour is mistaken in his thinking. He is conflating a specialized conception of possibility with the casual understanding that we should keep an open mind about whether an argument may be successful. What the skeptic should do is grant the possibility of premise 1 being true. At that point, he should demand justification that premise 1 is true. Possibility of the existence of God must be shown to be true (or at least mutually agreed upon), just as with every premise of every argument ever.
SimeonDenk
Ontological argument is the most desperate argument. But This is what’s expected when there’s no empirical evidence of God.
ttecnotut
" God is magnificent. And He Good, and He is True and He is Beautiful. And not just a little bit, but a lot, maximally so." 35:40
Thomasrice
Thank you so much for making this channel! I very much appreciate it! :))
inkella
No, it isn't. It's nonsense. Another easy question to answer.
bobwhelan
can you say man-made. We make things up and then run it up the flag pick your flag pole?
raywingfield
I am so glad that I’m just rapping up a college course in informal logic!! There are technical terms used here which I am not sure I would have understood beforehand.
flavioespaillat
Loved his ending comments! I remember a while back I had a similar thought to Arbour's about the whole considering the other theistic arguments in favour of the possibility premise. It seems to me that either that, or the Maydolean/Leibnizian idea, is the most promising line of argument for the MOA. This was a brilliant interview! :)
