The Ontological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God)

Join George and John as they discuss different Philosophical theories. In this video they will be debating the Ontological Argument. Is the very concept of God enough to prove His existence. Does it logically follow that a Perfect Being (or that than which nothing greater can exist) must have necessary existence. Watch as our two favorite Philosophers debate and focus on the works of Anselm, Descartes and Kant to determine if the Ontological Argument is sufficient to prove the existence of God.

Check out our book...
Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the Three main arguments for the existence of God. The Ontological Argument, The Teleological Argument and The Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon...

This script is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part I" eBook, available on Amazon:

- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'The Philosophy of Religion':

0:00 - Introduction
0:28 - Anselm's Ontological Argument
1:51 - Gaunilo's Perfect Island criticism
2:25 - Anselm's response
3:17 - Descartes' Ontological Agument
4:05 - Kant's criticism of the Ontological Argument
6:00 - Aquinas' criticms of the Ontological Argument

#ontologicalargument #existenceofGod #philosophy

[PhilosophyVibe]

Does God Exist A Philosophical Inquiry, Available Worldwide on Amazon

[maxlaver]

The ontological argument is just wordplay

[cheyannedeopersaud]

I should pay you guys my tuition money since I learn more here than in college itself!

[bskec]

To me, the ontological argument seems the worst, most childish argument possible. "I can imagine it, therefore it is" coupled with "I define god as existing, therefore he must exist, by definition" I've never understood why anyone over the age of 5 ever accepted it as anything other than garbage. This video really hasn't changed my mind on this at all, but it was a good attempt.

[GottfriedLeibnizYT]

This argument always cracks me up with its cheekiness.

[bipulray]

My professor needs ur lectures more than me

[teddyp]

Amazing debate!!! Both logical points being made! Is this debate going to continue, or was that the end?

[cadebuckley]

Thank you guys so much. I’m cramming a philosophy paper right now and this is EXACTLY what I needed

[philipparker]

I devoted my thesis to Kant's critique of the three (deemed) possible types of arguments for the existence of God, and I have to say you present this very well. I fancy how you use his actual examples (e.g. the triangle).

[XiagraBalls]

It's perhaps the worst argument ever put forward in the history of philosophy.

As outlined here, it essentially tries to define God into existence. What does the word "perfect" actually mean? Can anyone describe anything as "perfect"? The perfect island example is a case in point - what would be its perfect size, location, surroundings, climate, surroundings, content, occupants, etc, etc? And bear in mind, you'd have to define each attribute perfectly precisely and not be persuaded that a slight variation in those attributes might be slightly better and therefore more inclined towards perfection. In other words, perfection is an ill-defined concept.

WLC has tried using this argument but replacing the word "perfect" with the phrase "maximally great" - another equally meaningless phrase. If god is both unique, alone and unitary, then He is both the greatest and the worst of and at anything. Such descriptions become meaningless in a sphere where there is nothing to which you can compare God.

[Owwwwie]

concise and well thought out dialogue. loved it!

[hoffer]

Here is a philosophical argument which supports the Ontological Argument of God
1) Existence has always existed - therefore including forever in the past
2) Existence has always been dynamic, ever changing states from one to another.
3) This supports real existence of a past eternal multiverse, or eternal in the past cyclic model of a single universe.
4) This supports existence of an infinite number of universes
5) In an infinite number of universes all imagineable plausible states of existence will have existed
6) The concept of a God, as a supreme eternal being - ruler of all worlds, is plausible
7) Given an infinite multiverse, God must exist

[sriharsha]

Best and most underrated channel!! Thank you❤️

[Captain-Cosmo]

It is a possible that in the far and distant future a sufficiently advanced civilization discovered the true nature of the universe and traveled back in time to create the universe. No god required.

[avontaywilliams]

Another great video! I think the ontological argument was a good attempt at explaining the existence of God, however I think it is to flawed to be considered. Even if the argument was correct, which god do we apply it to? How is it applied to individuals that believe in multiple Gods?

[markoshun]

Cool, I couldn't have explained it, but when I heard this argument, I had the sense that it was only 'proving' a concept. But not knowing how to argue that, I just conceded the point to show we were nowhere further along in establishing a god. Existence is not a predicate of the concept, is very clear. Thanks.

[lukaskaltenmaier]

Schopenhauer also argues against existence as essence very clearly in his fourfold root (which I'm currently reading). For me this is very convincing.

[luckyluckydog]

very nice video on a classical topic. The ontological argument was unconvincing when it was put forward almost 1000 years ago and so it remains. I remember hearing it when I was 16 in class and I thought it was just ridiculous; I also remember my philosophy teacher adding that Kant disproved it because he showed that it is one thing to have one hundred thalers in one's pocket, and another thing to *think* you have them... You don't say! I found that even more ridiculous. Besides, the God one arrived at with this kind of reasoning is a far cry from the God of the bible (=angels & miracles).

[Eemmeh]

Amazing video, helped me out a lot!

Would be great if you could add subtitles to the video. It worked all right with the auto-generated but "a posteriori" was translated to "... so it is a pasta we all right". Which I would take it not correct haha

[Hannah-tghw]

If we rely so heavily on evidence to prove God's existence, how is it when I tell my doctor that my pain level is 6 from a range of 1-10, he believes me? We cannot prove pain exists and yet we so readily believe others experience of it. The example given by Kant concerning predicates is inadequate. We cannot rely on concepts of pencils and pizza because they are pre-existing objects. We cannot classify pizza alongside pain.