The Misuse of Anselms Ontological Argument

A response to DasAmericanAtheists excellent, not to mention typically eloquent, latest couple of videos on this argument delivered in my usual robust (in other words shouty) style!

[ultimateinfinite]

Great video, really look forward to your videos! Keep up the good work Jim! xx

[noelplum]

@msuders
I think I understood you, the two statements taken together demonstrate that a maximally great being would ultimately prove the source for all the 'stuff' it is just that i don't see what doubt that casts on the notion that such an entity may not be the direct creator of our (or any other) universe.

[noelplum]

@SkepticsClaw
I would say to that firstly that Occam's razor is nothing more than a very rough rule of thumb - and one that is demonstrably proven fallible in our daily lives each and every day - and secondly, invoking Occams Razor is not an excuse to draw conclusions well beyond what the evidence permits (in this case, no evidence whatsoever, simply a philosophically entity that is derived bereft of context).

[noelplum]

@DasAmericanAtheist
"I'm thinking about doing a wrap-up video where I address a few or the more common responses and giving the basic theist re-response...maybe, hopefully."
I will be looking out for it, so make it!
"You should send me some of your beer some time!"
Taking a sabbatical from brewing atm but I planted my own hop plant at the start of the summer and it has made great progress- so expect to be able to supply my own for a batch next year :)

[threeofwands]

@NomosCharis
When you mention the GCB I'm going to call it infinite being (or IB i suppose) since in these historical debates I tend to agree mainly with Scotus.
The problem with introducing the moral oughts is that they are quite obviously cultural and historical, and therefore the products of what you say is an intermediary, or finite production of being.
Not obeying the oughts of finite being have their consequences, and they are meted out by cultural representatives - court, police, etc...

[noelplum]

@NomosCharis
Rereading your comment i think I spot the source of our disagreement. You state:
"Moral oughts are not arbitrary. They are necessary and universal, like logic and math."
Ofc i disagree with you here but what i would like to know is why are they 'necessary'? Also, are they necessary and divinely sourced for Chimps? Dolphins? Dogs? Meerkats? Ants and bees?

[noelplum]

@noelplum99
...so has anything even been created there other than the original 'nugget' (according to brian greene maybe a few kilograms), an inflaton field and a gravitational field? How would we describe the status of everything else? it just doesn't seem clear to me.

[noelplum]

@NomosCharis
"Nobody believes that moral oughts are arbitrary based on the contingent decisions of a finite deity. "
What people believe here is absolutely irrelevant to how things actually are.

[noelplum]

@72daystar
That is a very good question and one I have considered before. It almost implies that god's existence is predicated on the intellectual state of an evolving ape - that now we can imagine a maximally great being he must exist whereas go back a few million years he may not have.
Of course for me this is all superceded by the simple fact i cannot even approximate a maximally great being in my mind - not even close.

[noelplum]

@noelplum99
...but one which does not resolve the conundrum imo. For example, does the maximally greater being do the creating out of nothing and the lesser entity fashion the universe out of that cloth, or otherwise?
I also am not personally entirely sure what constitutes 'ex nihilo' anymore. In the physics of the zero-energy universe hypothesis almost the entire energy of the universe is borrowed from the expanding gravitational field during

[threeofwands]

@NomosCharis
I do agree. Given the idea that we are duty-bound to do what we would know as right on a metaphysical level. Which is unfortunately not the case.
The reason is because, as finite being, we are unable to know what is right at the metaphysical level. We are stuck in a realm of perspective, of opinion, and the slaughter bench of history details this truth.
It is an unpleasant view but the consequences of this reality faces us at every turn every day of our lives.

[noelplum]

@Venaloid
i have a feeling i have seen him present this. Again, though he drew the conclusion that such a first cause was the direct creator of our universe as i recall that was not a necessary conclusion of his preceeding analysis, simply his chosen solution.

[antybu]

I think Craig would say that direct creation is simpler, that indirect creation can be ignored by using Ockham's razor.

[ekhaat]

"It's good to be back"

It's good to have you back.

Cheers

[noelplum]

@msuders
"1. It is greater to directly create everything than to indirectly create everything. (which you said in your video)"
I did say in my video but I already said that this is demonstrably wrong. For I can imagine the being who directly created everything and yet we know that not to be the case, so were that being the greater then Anslems proposition is already falsified empirically.
"2. It is greater to create ex nihilo then to create ex materia."
That is an interesting

[noelplum]

@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Go get yourself a pop filter. They are not that expensive. "
Does that guarantee i never have to listen to Abba, Madonna or Kylie Minogue ever again?

[noelplum]

@BeardedBill86
The problem is he is very good at it and the people that come up against him often look woefully underprepared in comparison.
When you see Craig debate it is absolutely clear that he has prepared for all his opponents answers, yet his opponents often seem taken by surprise by Craigs responses. That said, i would love to see a Dennett/Craig debate, i suspect Dennett would do his homework and be the right guy to tread on Craig's philosophical squirming.

[jontv]

Similarly, even if you buy into either of the two major classes of arguments for the existence of a supreme being -- ontological or "prime mover" -- that doesn't necessarily imply the existence of any specific god as described by any particular religion.

Indeed, most religions officially admit that their god is beyond human comprehension -- but then they go on to put forward a portrait of this incomprehensible deity which they expect the faithful to accept as true and inevitable.

[noelplum]

@noelplum99
Just to add: i think WLC would say that, you are right, but my retort would be with what i just said about ockham's and then add that every example whose history we know of classes as indirect creation which denudes him of any basis for extrapolating such a conclusion from the known into the unknown.

[NomosCharis]

@NomosCharis
"but what i would like to know is why are they 'necessary'?"

Why or how? They are necessary in that the principles behind them are unchanging, eternal, and universal. It is always wrong to torture little children for fun, at all times, all places, and in any conceivable universe, for instance. You cannot conceive of a sentient alien race existing somewhere for whom it would be right to do that. The moral principle is absolute.