Ben Shapiro and William Lane Craig Discuss the Ontological Argument!

Ben Shapiro and William Lane Craig Discuss the Ontological Argument!

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[autumnberend]

I'm an atheist that has always likes Dr. Craig. I don't agree, obvious, and I have my thoughts on this argument, but it's obvious to me he's very well-read, a very polite and thoughtful man, and a skillful orator. I remember watching him speak in many debates, like with Christopher Hitchens, and I just always find myself having a lot of respect for him. I'd love to speak with him on these things one day. I always enjoy listening and hearing perspectives from Craig and Frank Turek.

[WhiteScorpio]

So demonstrate that your maximally great being is possible. But note that if you point a being existing in SOME possible worlds, you haven't actually pointed at a maximally great being. A maximally great being, by your own definition, must exist in ALL possible worlds, so you would need to demonstrate that such a being actually exists in the real world AND on top of that that it's impossible for it not to exist.
In short, in order to say that a maximally great being is even possible, you would need to demonstrate that it actually exists first.
Like all apologetic arguments, when dismantled, it just tautologically states "if God exists, then God exists" and pretends that it proved something.

[JohnCamacho]

God wasn't just defined into existence, God was philosophized into existence. God is still a hypothetical being, with a resume padded by human beings who chose the most profound qualities like choosing a video game character.

[fireflyf]

Please define, "maximally great, " in an objective fashion.

Primarily, why is existence objectively greater than non-existence?

[WhiteScorpio]

When one of the most prominent argument for your religion is you simply imagining things into existence, you should just abandon this religion and not waste anyone's time.

[therick]

So then if it’s even possible that there’s a natural explanation for everything….then there’s a natural explanation for everything!!!

Cool cool.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Low Bar Bill at it again, still digging to lower his epidemic standard. Your bloated imagination can’t define things into reality, Billy…

[andrijatomorad]

Here is a way to truthfully parody the argument in a way it isn't too vague (at least it parodies the version without necessary existence, but I'll talk about the other version too). Replace:
-the domain of beings with the domains of animals
-God with Dragon
-maximally great being with maximally dangerous animal (define dragon as such)
-God's perfect attributes with things like perfect strength, speed, intelligence and stealth if you are going for that version of the argument (and define dragon as the animal that posesses all those attributes)
-the linking of greatness and existence with a line like "the maximally dangerous animal has to exist because if it doesn't, it cannot hurt you so it isn't dangerous"

One of the problems with the argument is that it, for the love of Dragon, cannot commit to a consistent link between existence and greatness. The line I've noted mimics how apologists sneak it. The apologist defines greatness in a way so that God automatically comes up as the greatest in everyone's mind, but then he adds another thing on top of that definition while jumping to a conclusion. It makes a definition so that max. greatness requires this and that, and then when it decides that God meets that definition, it modifies the definition so that it also requires (necessary) existence.
If you stick to the first definition of greatness, it's a problem because the link between greatness and (nec.) existence is hard (if not impossible) to make without defining it because it's all on a completely abstract ground. And if you don't do that link, there are other possibilities on the table. It is still possible that God is indeed the max. great being our minds can come up with even though he doesn't (nec.) exist because all of his other attributes are just that perfect (enough to grant him max. greatness). It is also possible that God isn't the max. great being after all because it turns out he doesn't (nec.) exist which hurts him enough to lose the title of max. greatness.

And that is all after you ignore the stuff in any holy book that might get in the way of a specific god being max. great, and the fact that max. greatness might not even be a coherent concept just like the largest natural number isn't a coherent concept, as well as the domain of all beings we can imagine is very vague... For instance, is a god that is exactly like the god of the Bible, except he never commanded any genocides in that domain? And how do you determine which one is greater without circular reasoning?

TL;DR I think the ontological argument sucks.

[JackgarPrime]

I never really saw what the point of this argument is. It's about as much "defining God into existence" as you can get from how I see it. You would have to first demonstrate that such a being even can exist before any of the rest of the premises is at all sound. Just because I can imagine something doesn't mean it exists. We can imagine an omnipotent, omniscient entity that is the best of everything, but it doesn't follow that it is even possible such an entity could be. It also doesn't follow that if such a being existed, it has to be the Abrahamic God.

[redmed]

If god doesn't need a first cause then the universe doesn't need a first cause.

[JohnCamacho]

"If it's even possible that God exists..."

For the sake of argument and discussion we grant that possibility, but no one really knows if it's possible for a disembodied, perfect mind that's also omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, to exist.

[pseudomastix]

I'm not sure that there is a congruency between our conception of a thing and its ontological status. Take Gaunilo's Island for example; I can conceive, analytically, of a 'perfect' island, but does that island, because I conceive of it as 'perfect', necessarily have to exist? Very clearly, no.

In this sense then, just because we cannot help but think something must exist doesnt mean that it actually must exist; our conceptions are incongruent with reality.

[gregorycocco]

Would you say love requires time? If love is defined as giving yourself. “For God so loved the world that he GAVE His one and only son…”

[brilliant]

So if it's possible that I killed person X, that means I killed person X? Doesn't seem right to me.

[anaximander]

Ironically some that believe we live in a simulation use a similar argument. However, because they are arguing the opposite, namely that everything is simulated and nothing is real, they block off any opportunity to uphold the burden of proof which they bear.

[noorsmind]

putting aside the disturbingly genocidal ben shapiro - whats the principle behind the idea that what we can conceive exists, whats the context - is this like alternate reality theory ?

[Talote]

Please don't use this argument in any debate.
It's CRAP. And your opponent will DESTROY YOU.

[mugsofmirth]

Dr. Craig is doing himself a disservice by freely associating with the likes of Ben.

[edgarmatzinger]

Bill "lower the bar" Lane Craig keeps on defining things into existence. The ontological argument is a play on words. All he has is that if the ontological argument is true, a god exists. He doesn't show that it *must* be *his god* that exists.

[lilfire]

3/4 of the daily wire believe that Christ is King. Its just to show Ben (who is Jewish) now.