A New Look at the Ontological Argument W/ Dr. Josh Rasmussen

Joshua Rasmussen (Ph.D., University of Notre Dame) is associate professor of philosophy at Azusa Pacific University. He is author or co-author of six books, including How Reason Can Lead to God and Is God the Best Explanation of Things: a Dialogue. Rasmussen works on questions about fundamental existence and the nature of beings.

SPONSORS

GIVING

This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.

LINKS


SOCIAL

[--AC]

At 6:30 Matt says, "I suppose you can go on the web somewhere and see people debating whether or not solipsism is true-- which would be interesting who the proponent of solipsism thinks he's debating against, but nonetheless" 😆😂🤣🤯

[ipso-kkft]

Hoping this fresh look can help me. The modal ontological argument was one of my first "doors" into apologetics and theology.

[nathanaelculver]

I am excited to hear Dr. Rasmussen touch on the argument from values, which was a staple of scholastic philosophy, and forms the foundation of Aquinas’ Fourth Way, which is rarely discussed today. I would love to hear more on this. Perhaps you could do something with Fr. Pine.

[Joker]

The ontological argument is my favorite. It's surprisingly significant in the history of mathematics.

[joelmontero]

I'm so glad that you are doing more videos on specific arguments for God's existence, I would like to see a video about Aquinas' fourth way, I haven't seen anyone defending that argument ever.
God bless you two

[MakalaDoulos]

The Ontological argument (for me) is a shoring up of my own faith, and knowledge of God... As we begin to know and experience God, the ontological argument makes more sense... So yes, for an argument to unbelievers, it is weak.

[skipperry]

My brain hurts.. lol

So the “property of being a property” is the set of things like: blue-ness, redness, chairness, human-ness, etc.

Is this the right way to think about it?

[whatsinaname]

Josh, who thinks about arguments a lot, tends to forget other people don’t think about arguments a lot, and that’s why I generally prefer other apologists. He’s absolutely brilliant, but he has a really hard time keeping other people on the same wavelength as himself. I can empathize with it, but it really is a roadblock to prospective listeners and I hope he improves upon it a bit since once you can start to follow him all the way through (Which takes months of dedication at least) his genius truly shines through.

[hughmungus]

About 20 minutes in and I feel like my brain is swimming in lactic acid. Gosh I need to work on improving my abstract thinking skills.

[Renttroseman]

Dr Josh is one of my favorite apologists he explains things in a simple way and he makes sure to refute any counter that may be brought up by atheists.

[daviresende]

Josh's website link is wrong. It is missing a "j".

[nathanaelculver]

*A Thomistic Ontological Argument?*

It should be noted that in rejecting Anselm's OA Aquinas was not rejecting the _possibility_ of arguing to God _a priori_ in general, only the specific way Anselm was atttempting to do so. Aquinas would agree with Anselm that, if we had a sufficient grasp of God's essence, we would understand from that alone that God must exist; Anselm's argument would carry. The problem is that though the concept "God exists" _would be_ self-evident to a sufficiently advanced mind, it is not self-evident to _our_ minds.

For Aquinas, all knowledge derives ultimately from sensory experience. Without sensory experience we could know nothing, not even the quintessentially abstract concepts of mathematics. However, having once apprehended such fundamental concepts, we can then reason _a priori_ from them to all kinds of new knowledge, just as mathematicians do.

Consider Aquinas' argument for God from _De Ente et Essentia:_ God's essence and existence are identical, and there can be only one thing of which this is true. For anything other than God, essence and existence are distinct, and hence they must be _caused by_ God, either directly or indirectly. Thus, the existence of _anything_ that is not God demonstrates God's existence.

But there is nothing precluding this _anything that is not God_ from being an abstract concept itself. And granting that, Ed Feser has outlined a sketch of a Thomistic OA:

1. There is at least one proposition.
2. If this proposition is identical to God, then God exists.
3. If it is not identical to God, then either it is a substance or an attribute.
4. If it is an attribute, then it depends for its existence on a substance.
5. So, either it is itself a substance or depends for its existence on a substance.
6. But for any substance other than God, its essence and existence are distinct.
7. And anything whose essence and existence are distinct can exist only if it is caused by God.
8. So, this proposition is either itself God, or it depends either directly or indirectly on God for its existence.
9. So, God exists.

[barrywilson]

People who seek to prove the existence of God are so silly they think their God will survive the truth. It won't be connected to any of our Gods. And it has never contacted us.
Why is intelligence never used?

[giuseppesavaglio]

Instead of arguments that a god exists, how about demonstrating that a god exists?

[donaldmcronald]

God is the ultimate solipsist. There are no REAL angels.

[rafaelallenblock]

This just proves that even an education can't make you smart.

[isaaclu]

Matt where did you get that shirt from?

[eliasarches]

Now I can see I’ve imbibed Aristotelianism since Rasmussen is talking as if properties are things. Where as I think Aristotle would hold something along the lines of that a property is a way of talking about things which are instantiated and thus the concept “property” isn’t a “thing” in itself. This seems to be a point of misunderstanding between Fradd and Rasmussen.

[geomicpri]

An analogy I use (instead of the tree/branches) is a smart phone with an OS & apps. The physical phone is the maximally great foundation. Any cool apps you instal are merely different applications of what the physical phone is already capable of. The fanciest camera app is useless if the physical camera doesn’t work. The YouTube app is nothing if the physical phone can’t connect to the internet. The best app there is, is limited to the capabilities of the physical device. The device is the standard of perfection, of maximality, by which all “goodness”, or functionality within the device is measured.

[jamiekimble]

Josh - “....anything that is limited in anyway, or has a lack of greatness, like a turtle...”Huh? Ha! Really though, this is fascinating stuff even though I too was struggling to comprehend at times. If he gave simpler examples I may have caught on. I’ve learned so much from your channel and I enjoy content like this. Thanks, Matt.