Is the Ontological Argument the Worst?

Dr. Craig responds to parodies of the Ontological Argument.

#williamlanecraig #reasonablefaith #philosophy #theology #ontologicalargument

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[ajpalazuelos]

WLC literally wiped the floor with that argument. Pure smoke.

[KudaIzka]

I never expect anything from Rationality Rules and it still manages to disappoint me.

[signpost]

WLC is impressive in his knowledge and intelligence but I admire him more for his gracious demeanor in debates and interviews. Seems to me he always choose his words carefully in response to challenges. When all is said and done it is the Christ like character of a person that counts.
God bless the RF ministry 🙏

[leonardu]

Far from the worst, I actually think it's the most sophisticated. This was the one that really caught my attention when first got acquainted with philosophy.

[Evolution.]

And how to you prefer your greatest possible being, Billy? Mine wouldn’t drown people. I think I just improved on yours. Mine wouldn’t inflict cancer on anyone. Mine wouldn’t let people starve to death as part of a wonderful cosmic plan. Mine wouldn’t need apologists.

[logansales]

Precisely. Thanks for helping me quickly identify and understand the fallacious thinking he presented in his arguments.

[tcampe]

I can imagine a maximal realm that my consciousness continues to exist in after I die Where I experienced maximal flourishing and bliss that does not include any gods whatsoever, including, about limitation, anything remotely similar to the God that William Lane Craig believes in. All beings that have ever existed exist in this realm maximally and without anger, hate, jealousy, sadness, revenge or any other negative state of being. And this maximal realm is necessary defined as being one in which no gods of any kind and by any definition never existed.

By WLC's reasoning, this real must necessarily exist. of course, he would say that God, by definition, would necessarily exist in all possible worlds, which would be a contradiction. But the contradiction flows in both directions.

What WLC seems to invariably ignore is that the concept of "maximal" is inherently subjective. This would necessarily include the quality of existing as being maximal.

[michaeljelicic]

Anyone who doesn’t agree with the argument doesn’t really understand it.

[prime_time_youtube]

Great video, Dr. Craig! Wow, IRRationality Rules does not even understand what he is saying..

[heresa_notion_]

The greater point of the parodies is that the form of the onto-argument as Steve presents it, seems to advocate hard solipsism, or that our thoughts of existence can generate that existence. But there is no need for such absurdum demonstrations, as valid arguments can be wrong if its premises are false. My vote for a false premise is this one:

If the greatest possible being does not exist, then I can conceive of a greater possible being ... namely one that exists.

If any beings exist, AT ALL, they are "possible", so it is CERTAIN that there is a "greatest possible being" (or less likely, but still "possible", a bunch of ties for "beings" defined for being at the maximum of "greatness"). So, this premise is false, or at least "inert", in that the antecedent of the conditional can never be true, at least in the universe I exist in.

[dotails]

There is no such thing as the greatest possible being.
I'm theist and christian because it's the best explanation of fine tuning and historical records, but the ontological argument is the worst and should never be used.
I'm a fan of Craig in most respects except this.

[achristian]

excellent video! Thanks for putting up with people like that atheist that has no clue on how the argument works.

[reasonforge]

The objector seemed quite familiar with a particular formula in which the concept of the argument has been attempted to be encoded through words. But he seems to have not decoded it properly. This I can hardly blame him for--as its not something easy to see for one's first time, but what I think shows hubris is for him trying to make a big deal of what obviously was not the right way to decode it.

[lkae]

I wouldn't be able to enjoy using my thumbs to destroy this atheist argument right now if there was a greatest evil being. 🤣

[amAntidisestablishmentarianist]

No, it is actually the best argument.

[YorgosSimeonidis]

Why is the greatest possible island subjective and the greatest possible being objective? What things make a being greatest, objectively?

[deusvult]

An island is physical and contingent. So an island is subjective. I understand how an island is different from a great being. God isn't contingent.

But I have the same problem with the idea of a great being. If anyone can answer I would appreciate it. To be the greatest being, isn't that also a matter of opinion. Because to be great can be dependent upon circumstances. For example if someone is trying to kill you, in this situation wouldn't it be better to have anger over love? Because anger can drive you to protecting yourself.

The qualities of being great seem to be circumstantial. So isn't it the same that to be the greatest being is subjective? The problem I'm having with this argument, is how do we define a great being? It seems to me that it's subjective.

I believe in God, but I'm looking for clarity on this argument. Appreciate anyone's help.

[gabrielduran]

Ooh are we reviewing people's responses to arguments for god's existence?

Please do Onkar Ghates refutation to the ontological argument and Craig's cosmological argument next pls 🙏


Refutation of Dinesh D Souza's Ontological argument


Refutation of Craig's Kalam cosmological argument

[Captain-Cosmo]

It is possible that, one day in the far and distant future, a sufficiently advanced civilization will understand the nature of the universe and they will travel back in time and create it. No god required.

[bobs]

So Steven hasn't "... really grasped the concept of God". Isn't that the point of an argument for the existence of God -- to provide a way to do such grasping? What Dr. Craig said is that Steven doesn't see the validity in the argument for the existence of God because he doesn't believe in the existence of God.