Necessary Existence - Reformulation of the Ontological Argument

preview_player
Показать описание
Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas, today they will be going back to the Ontological Argument and looking into the idea of God’s Necessary Existence.

The reformulation of the Ontological Argument was a revisit to the traditional Philosophical argument for the existence of God, attempting to prove the existence of God through a priori logic. Although the Ontological Argument ran into fundamental flaws, Philosophers have since attempted to revive the argument, with a focus on God’s Necessary existence across all possible worlds.

Does this version of the Ontological Argument go the distance in logically proving the existence of God? Watch as George and John take a look into the theory.

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

- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon:

#ontologicalargument #necessaryexistence #philosophy #existenceofGod
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

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

- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon:

PhilosophyVibe
Автор

I think one could argue that a Knowno is incoherent.

If a Knowno exists in a possible world, one can tie it back to the Contingency Argument for God; either the Knowno's existence is neccessary, or it is contingent on something else.

If the Knowno is itself neccessary, then it is a perfect being, in which case the Concept of a Knowno is self-contradicting.

If the Knowno is contingent on something else, then ultimately a neccessary being is needed to explain the contingent ones. In this case, the Knowno's knowledge would be incorrect and thus incoherent.

So I don't think a Knowno is a logically coherent concept

calebjackson
Автор

Actually the existence of a knowno is logically incoherent. A being cannot know there is no perfect being unless it's all knowing. And being all knowing itself, it's actually a perfect being itself (or a maximally great being by default).

ashley_brown
Автор

I do after effects work for a living - and so I’m aware of the amount of work that this would take to make. Impressive!

JonSteingard
Автор

I think that the notion of a knowno is incoherent since to be able to know whether maximal greatness is possibly or impossibly exemplified you must be omniscient. And, if you are omniscient you must de facto be the maximally great being. You just can't be omniscient and be impotent and contingent.


Secondly, there are many reasons to think that the existence of a maximally great being is indeed possible (apart from the a posteriori arguments of course).
Quoting from my school research project:

"The concept of God seems to be a coherent concept because the properties of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence do not seem to be incoherent or incompatible with each other as the concepts of a square circle or a married bachelor or an existing non-existing being would be. And thus, until one is able to demonstrate that the concept of Maximal Greatness is incoherent we should accept that Maximal Greatness is a coherent concept by default. Finally, the fact that all the objections to said concept fail further proves that such concept is indeed coherent."

"Moreover, the Modal Perfection Argument developed by Robert Maydole establishes that Maximal Greatness is a possible property. It goes as follows:

1. If a property is a ‘great-making’ property, its negation is a ‘lesser-making’ property.

2. ‘Great-making’ properties do not entail ‘lesser-making’ properties. (Makes sense because a ‘great-making’ property could not be a ‘great-making’ property if it entailed ‘lesser-making’ properties.)

3. Maximal Greatness is the greatest ‘great-making’ property, therefore it cannot entail its negation of non-Maximal Greatness. (In modal logic, a property that is impossible will entail its opposite.) If we conclude that Maximal Greatness is an impossible property then all things must negate Maximal Greatness, therefore all things entail non-Maximal Greatness including all impossible properties such as Maximal Greatness. But looking back at the first point we see that Maximal Greatness cannot entail its opposite because ‘great-making’ properties, such as Maximal Greatness, cannot be ‘great-making’ properties and entail ‘lesser-making’ properties and therefore, Maximal Greatness is a possible property.


Plus, Maximal Greatness is perfection and if perfection is logically absurd then we cannot adequately define things such as evil, ignorance, weakness, etc., as imperfections."

dazedmaestro
Автор

The flaw is in confusing the concept of a perfect being which logically has to exist in every possible world, with a perfect being which actually exists - logic cannot bring about being, no more than the mathematical concept of a cube can bring into existence an actual cube!

Another more plausible argument might be that since stuff including ourselves actually exists, it is factually necessary (although not logically necessary) that there must be a brute fact, that there must be an ultimate source of being upon which all contingently existing things including ourselves, owe their actual existence to?

MichaelLevyMusic
Автор

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.

Captain-Cosmo
Автор

WOW! This channel is AWESOME in delivernig things simply! I just wish there was a little bit more ''quality'' in the animation.

theflash
Автор

Why do you have to rank the greatness of beings? I’m not sure existence is a characteristic of a being, or if it is just the status of a particular being either

chrisburgess
Автор

I'm preparing for Theodicea exame and you guys are such a big help! Thank you!

annamariakovacs
Автор

How does the ontological argument account for hierarchical equals? I can say that the greatest Canadian coin is the 1 dollar coin, but this does not mean that there is only 1 dollar coin in existence. Several things as a group can be hierarchically greater than all other equivalents, but it does not imply their singularity. The argument then becomes purely linguistic. The hierarchy in which they are the greatest is also not necessarily a true evaluation of greatness. If the hierarchy does not exist, and we are all equal within it, this argument would then imply all things are God.

Please let me know your thoughts, and as always, thanks for the great videos!

kevingibrayel
Автор

Reverse argument...I can imagine a world where God does not exist, therefore, God does not exist. Furthermore, "greatest" is arbitrary. Lastly, you are mixing epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility.

gabrielteo
Автор

Only a 1:20 in to the video. But I have a problem with saying God can't come into existence because then what ever created him would be better.

If we create AI and it improves its self until it completely incorporates its self into all existence and becomes god then God created its self or created a reality in which it is God aka holographic universe and the simulation theory.

deadright
Автор

How can you put restrictions on God? The principle of contradiction is a human linguistic construct. God, if God exists cannot be restricted by human, language rules. Anything impossible to a human: any contradictory rule, can not be impossible to God.

kallianpublico
Автор

1:13 - I'm sceptical of the assumption that any being that created God must necessarily be greater than God. It's not obvious to me that if being X created being Y, then X is necessarily greater than Y.
For example, it's not impossible to imagine humans creating a sentient robot that was (or became) greater than humans in every conceivable way (smarter, stronger, more creative, maybe even more moral, etc).


Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by "great".

saeedbaig
Автор

A Knowno could only exist if it had ALL knowledge. Was perfectly honest and good. And was present everywhere at all times to confirm its knowledge.

The Knowno could only exist if the Knowno itself was God.

nickzema
Автор

how does the Knowno Know a God doesn't exist?

LukeMedcalf
Автор

It is possible that a world exists in which I am God, therefore I am God in all worlds.

Lianthrelle
Автор

I am theist, but this argument is the most challenging to understand

vitorbowen
Автор

The idea of God being a necessary being seems to involve a contradiction. For a necessary being is fastened into existence and thus lacks the ability not to exist. But that's incompatible with being omnipotent. So, an omnipotent necessary being is a contradiction. God exists, but not of necessity.

geraldharrison
welcome to shbcf.ru