Ontological Argument Made Simple

In the ontological argument, God's existence is not just possible or probable or very likely, but is logically ensured. Anselm defined God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought”. It relies on nothing else than good old logic to show that, if the premises are true, God must exist.

In this series I would like to try to explain some of the best apologetic arguments around. Most of these arguments are around a long time already, but many Christians avoid them because they might be a bit intimidating.

TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 Introduction
01:31 Ontology
02:59 Anselm's Ontological Argument
04:45 Critics
06:52 Modal Logic / Alvin Plantinga
09:29 Definition of God
10:50 Planinga’s Modal Ontological Argument
14:36 How Does This Work?
16:04 Maximally Great Dragon (Unicorn)
19:59 In the End
22:12 Postscript (Outro)

SOURCES
👉 Norman Malcolm, Knowledge and Certainty: Essays and Lectures, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 149-50.
👉 Charles Hartshorne, Anselm's Discovery: A Re-examination of the Ontological Argument for God's Existence, (Chicago: Open Court, 1965).
👉 Groothuis, D., Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove Illinois, 2011.

TRANSCRIPT (ENGLISH AND DUTCH):

RECOMMENDED VIDEO:

Thank you for all your support and for watching my videos. I greatly appreciate it. My wish is that you will be encouraged by the videos and that it will help you to strengthen your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ! Follow me on Odysee… or even better: Why not starting your own channel? You can use my invitation in the description below, and we both receive some free LBC.
------------------------------------------
FOLLOW ME ON:

SUPPORT ME THROUGH:
LBC ➜ bKwUVrtnNP1Rz5rR5Ryxe3PrS6UkVUxRyv

#Apologetics #Simple #Arguments

[AnotherViewer]

You mentioned you liked other arguments in your reply to me in the Pascal's wager comment section, so peeked as some of your other videos to see if any of them are new to me. So far, none are new, so will just start by giving my normal generic reply to the Ontological Argument - The argument is in essence merely a linguistic trick. In philosophical terms, it commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all. Another difficulty with the argument is that it assumes that “perfection/maximally” is an objective property on which we can all agree. However, in reality the concept of perfection/maximum is a subjective one.

Now, skipped to the Maximally great dragon part: a maximally great dragon would have every single attribute you gave to your god earlier in the video and can also be given to any other maximally great being, and you have no way other than assertions to provide evidence otherwise.