The Ontological Argument (2 of 2) | by MrMcMillanREvis

[reyna]

Mr McMillan you are a Godsend! my A levels would be screwed without these videos, Thank you!

[mothman]

I can't imagine that an exposition of this subjects gets any clearer than this. Plus,  I love the presentation! Fonts, colors, drawings...:-))

[trimftw]

Great overview of the topic. I find myself coming back to this video from time to time and am grateful for the effort you put in.

[claudiag.]

Thank you for making these videos! They help me alot with my studies.

[arrahdinsy]

As much as I do agree that Mr McMillan's video are good at summarising the Units in A level RS, he has not mentioned here Anselm's response to Gaunilo which is helpful in backing up his second form. Anselm countered Gaunilo by saying that God and an island could not possibly be compared as like is not being compared with like, leading on to his second form about necessary and contingent beings. He said that an island and many other things, if not all things beside God and his characteristics such as love and being just etc,  are contingent, that they have come into existence from not having existed beforehand and will stop existing one day too. I'm not necessarily defending the Ontological Argument or saying it's good, but that this could be a counter-argument in a 10 mark part B question.

[elliemason]

thank you for explaining this! I have my philosophy exam on Thursday, this is the only video I've seen that's properly explained it!!

[charmainek]

I had to listen to this a few time but I finally got there in the end. THANK YOU!

[rebeccapodgorski]

Absolutely love your videos, they helped me revise through GCSE's and are now doing so with AS's. Is there any chance for some new ones covering other topics for A levels, such as Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, Plato and Aristotles philosophy with the unmoved mover etc? Thank you so much for taking the time to even make these they're greatly appreciated :)

[HarrySymons]

This was so helpful, thank you was really struggling with the ontological argument .

[Burak]

This video was very helpful. Would you be able to make a video based on religious language for A2. Thanks

[aliakarim]

I found Philosophy the hardest part of my RE AS course but this video along with many others really helped me understand it better! Thank you

[mariagunayon]

This is very helpful after revising the topic since it refreshes my memory, thank you!

[scottrutter]

Brillant!! Layed out all so well, easy to understand and aesthetically pleasing! Thank you.

[Appleblade]

Fantastic collection of the history of the best moves. Plantinga has rejoinders to Kant and Gaunilo that are pretty powerful. And his discussion of the argument with Lawrence Kuhn on 'Closer to Truth' is a bit clearer of an argument than the one you took from for this presentation. Once you listen to Plantinga it becomes more obvious the argument works so long as God is possible (ontologically, not just epistemically), but establishing God's possibility is no simple task.

[KateEmThomas]

doing an essay tomorrow we were meant to plan for over the weekend! totally forgot but this really helps, thank you

[df]

Excellent presentation and explanation. :)

[oliviavenosa]

Thank you so much for this video!! It has really helped me to understand the argument :)

[hibbzster]

can you do a video on religious language

[racheleden]

My AS level class love your clips! Thanks so much for sharing (C:

[allonymme]

3:50 - 5:00 So a chair has [Simplified] a seat, a stand, and a back. but existence is not a predicate? I disagree. you can imagine a chair yes, but it doesn't exist, so it does not actually have any of those parts, and is not a chair. if to be a chair it has to have those parts, it has to exist, because if the chair doesn't exist neither do its parts and therefore, without its parts, it is not a chair. Idk man I'm just a teenager and may be wrong but to me it seems like existence is a predicate for a lot of things . . .