Kant's Criticism of the Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument is the argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through a priori Logic. As Anselm argues, if the concept of God is a perfect being, a perfect being must exist, and so God must exist.

Immanuel Kant however found a big problem in the logic of the Ontological Argument. Watch as George and John discuss his criticism.

For an introduction to Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology set, available worldwide on Amazon:
Volume 1 – Philosophy of Religion
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
Volume 3 – Ethics and Political Philosophy

[PhilosophyVibe]

Get the Philosophy Vibe - Philosophy of Religion Part I eBook, available on Amazon:

[amiothenes]

Now, this is all great but where can I find a video explaining this video?

[MrHP]

These donnies sound like they need a beverage

[elliotrook]

These videos are so helpful. I’ve been revising this today and was a little confused by this and it’s helped a lot. Thank you

[Kaisar_bashir]

They are good! But their voice is annoying

[jedbmusic]

Necessary infinite existence and other perfect existence are predicate or nature of perfection, right?

[Paul-knez]

If you cant explain something simply, then you dont understand it.

[justiniani]

Doesn't this spark a Realism-Nominalism discussion? If realism is true then you cannot "deny a concept" because concepts exist on their own accord. You can actually use a transcendental argument and say in order to deny the concept of god, the concept must necessarily exist, otherwise you wouldn't be able to deny it.

[whatsinaname]

One small nitpick, this objection applies solely to the Cartesian (and maybe Spinozist) variants of the ontological argument. When applied to Anselm’s or Hartshorne’s or Godels or Plantinga’s the argument is a nonstarter

[Serenity]

Of course the whole concept of God could as well not exist. Theists dont argue "God exist and therefore God exists". The argument is that if it is even logicaly possible for the concept of God to exist, than it has to exist in every possible world. The Objection that existence is not a property and adds nothing new to the concept might be correct, but we are talking about nessecary existance. And nessecary existence is indeed a game changer that adds new information to the thing it describes. It seems also obvious that nessecary existance is a greatmaking property. Therefore I think the argumment still stands and

[schoolopwielen]

15 minutes in a room with Anselm and you wet your pants.

[evangates]

If you watched the whole series the dude on the left lowkey made the biggest comeback in this argument

[Rspknlikeabssxd]

Could Descartes not counter this objection by saying existence is part of perfection and God is perfect so he must exist?

[locnguyenvan]

Character In the video It's great, I like it a lot $$

[alltimeislikethepresent]

_"It's contradictory to think of a triangle without three sides."_

Wait...what exactly would it be _"to think of a triangle without three sides"?_

I mean, every triangle has three sides, so to think of a triangle — any triangle, whatsoever — is to think of something with three sides, and is not to think of something without three sides. And, since every triangle has three sides, then, if you're going to use the phrase _"a triangle without three sides"_ to refer to a triangle, you're going to be using it to refer to something _with three sides;_ and _why_ would anyone in his right mind ever call a triangle — something with three sides — _"a triangle without three sides"?_

[Platonism]

The problem with kants criticism is God's existence is not a predicate since it's the very concept since He is the Necessary being. If being the Necessary existence is part of the concept then Kants criticism is worthless. What do you say?