Four Ontological Arguments in 12 Minutes

Ontological arguments aim to prove God's existence from the armchair. In this video, I assess four ontological arguments in under twelve minutes. Buckle up for rapid-fire philosophy.

0:00 Introduction
0:25 Anselm's Ontological Argument
4:53 Descartes Ontological Argument
6:16 Plantinga's Ontological Argument
7:02 Gödel's Ontological Argument

[mistermkultra]

Hey Joe, someday you should make a Tier list about theist Arguments for the existence Of God, Will be funny and interesting

[STARSS]

While they are fun to think about, I genuinely wonder if that type of argument - by itself - ever convinced anybody of its conclusion. I'm not saying that to be cheeky, it seems there's some deep issue with that class of argument that makes them intuitively unconvincing (summed up by "you can't define things into existence"). But maybe I'm wrong and some people do actually find them appealing.

[mistermkultra]

1. Is possible that Joe Schmid be Spiderman
2.If it is possible in at least one possible world, it must also be possible in this world
Therefore, Joe Schmid is Spiderman

[shiro]

Why would a necessary being be impossible, a atheist can’t just say “Muh it’s impossible” he would have to prove for why that would be the case.

[RickPayton-rd]

Why do these kinds of thinking seldom (never) find utility in ordinary, day to day thinking? Have arguments for God (having none of the kinds of evidence people trust in the mundane world) retreated to discussions that sound mad?

[rubeng]

If greatness is taken more literally we can say that being "in re" includes being in the intellect and thus is more encompassing, and to encompass more is then what it means to be greater for a concept. Conclusion: to look at God as non-existent falls short of the concept of God, it is like thinking a horse is a unicorn. This is not a positive claim about Gods existence, but a negative one about the possibility of coherently denying Gods existence.

Of course first we have to affirm that things existing in the mind have a being aswell, but I do not think that is semantically unfeasable. I think this negative sort of claim was more in line with Anselms introspective project in the proslogion.

[saladyummy]

I really enjoy these short-form videos! Keep up the great work👍. Do you have any plans on doing videos on Idealism and its relation to Theism?

[MetaphorUB]

I find much of your content a bit too intellectually dense (for me, at least), but this was a wonderful overview of ontological arguments in a digestible format. I’d love to see more like it.

[mistermkultra]

Thanks You for teach us your knowladges in Philosophy Of religion Spiderman

[SpaceLordof]

Greatness is poorly defined. That’s a problem, in my opinion.

[tbcop]

But spiderman does exist, he's name is Joe Schmid

[praiseoflight]

You’re blessing us with all this Ontological Arguments content!

[diviciacos]

Oh yeah. Intellectually, we agree on this point. Congratulations on your 3k followers. But why do you think it? It’s because the world is flawed and you have no one to blame. The Creator takes no responsibility. It’s a frustration that many people will enjoy hearing the dispensation.

Sometimes I say to God when no one’s listening, “Let me say something without you being an a—h—-.”

Yo I know I’m a white rabbit, but is there really any way I can make YouTube comments private?

[hewhoyawns]

I think it’s fine to reject either the first or the second premise of Gödel’s argument, depending on how exactly we understand the lingo. An atheist might say “yeah, ok, necessary existence is a perfection, this seems conceptually true, but I only accept that perfections don’t entail imperfections in a weaker sense, i.e. a perfection may only entail imperfections trivially (because it’s instantiated nowhere)”. I think it’s reasonable for an atheist to say (per impossibile) that a necessarily existent being would be greater than a continently existent being (all else being equal).

[roderictaylor]

Very nice. I never made it through Godel's argument. It's interesting to hear it as the same problem as other proofs that appeal to higher order predicate logic.

[williamslover]

I do love a good ontological argument :D

[modesttriangle]

The argument Descartes put forward is that god is infinite, and that we all think this as a given (there are three kinds of reality according to Descartes, finite, infinite, and modal). God being infinite only makes sense in the context of the supernatural (nothing natural is infinite).
Formal reality (finite reality) is due to a causal principle: something cannot come from nothing. There must be a cause in formal reality just like there is an effect in formal reality.
He uses this causal principle to conclude that the idea of gods infinite existence is accurately mapped onto reality, because our modal reality (ideas) of gods infinite existence map onto an innate understanding of the infinite existence.
The causal principle is used alongside the idea that there is a being with infinite formal reality that must have caused the innate idea of gods infinite existence.
Therefore, god exists. 😁

[joejohnoptimus]

My biggest issue is with the premise "It is possible that God exists". Sure, it's epistemically possible as in, "for all we know, it might be the case God exists". But it seems yet to be demonstrated that it is metaphysically possible or even logically possible (just because we haven't identified any contradictions in terms yet doesn't mean they're aren't any). So, it would really just be reduced to: "it is possible that it is possible that God exists" or "it might be possible that God exists" ... if that makes sense?

Not sure which version that premise belongs to, but it seems standard to several of them, right?

[archangel]

Alvin Plantinga is like Abraham Lincoln.

[eternalbyzantium]

JOE JOE, please do an analysis on the Buddhist idea of “dependent origination” and whether it sufficiently accounts for reality. THAT WOULD BE SO EPIC. It is rare for philosophical channels to philsophically analyse metaphysical ideas other than Christian theism.