Why the Ontological Argument Sucks

The whole video:

Yes, I do have a Patreon account, thank you for asking:

My Twitter:

Here’s my society6 store if you’re interested in my pretentious minimalist poster designs:

#atheist #atheism #apologetics #counterapologetics #philosophy #religion #god #ontology #ontologicalargument

[hank_says_things]

Craig and Shapiro. And I thought a writhing ball of hagfish was slimy.

[BluePhoenix_]

I don't see how the ontological argument isn't just defining god into existence.

[chrisose]

When Low Bar Bill says that the "steps of this argument are relatively uncontroversial" what he really means in that they are unencumbered by epistemic value. Which makes it perfect for the epistemic standards of Bill and Ben.

[MatthewShute]

All such arguments in a nutshell: "I've defined x as something that exists, so x MUST exist. By definition!"

[MoovySoundtrax]

Even when I was a Christian I knew the ontological argument was shit

[wunnell]

Possible worlds don't exist. They are things that we imagine. They are literally saying "I can imagine god, therefore god".

[ScottM]

It honestly sounds like a comic book fan explaining why Superman can pick up Thor's hammer

[xensonar]

It's not even an argument. It's linguistic slight-of-hand. A trick, and not even a subtle one.

[emmanuelpiscicelli]

I imagine a maximally great god killer that is automatically drawn to killing maximally great gods so god is dead in all conceivable worlds.

[sbushido]

I enjoy how Craig's beliefs seem to boil down to: _"My intuitions about this thing that's literally nothing like our day-to-day experiences mean I'm right!"_ He does it with his laughable cosmological nonsense, and he just did it here with his perfect imaginary friend...

[austinhernandez]

The ontological argument is literally "I can think of it, therefore it exists"

[jamierichardson]

We don't need to parody the argument it's a self parody

[rabbitpirate]

This argument also equivocates on the definition of "possible". Someone agreeing to the first premise is essentially just saying that there is nothing logically contradictory with the idea of a God existing. However, once you get to the second premise the word "possible" is being used a different way, specifically related to modal logic, which was not what the person agreed to. It is a bait and switch.

[clemstevenson]

This is what happens when theists try to defend blind faith. "God must exist, because I can imagine that god exists" demonstrates just how weak the god argument actually is. I don't care about imaginary gods, and the supernatural claims in the bible cannot be demonstrated to be factual.

[RobertSmith-gxmi]

I'm persuaded by actual evidence that human beings created the watch. What I am not persuaded by is assertions that human beings created the watch.

[jenna]

"I want a god because I'm too dumb to figure shite out so therefore there's a god." This stuff is intellectual masturbation with self gratification as the clear only goal.

[benjamintrevino]

Two guys who think the other is going to Hell having a chit chat.

[redstar]

I thought Immanuel Kant decisively demonstrated that the ontological argument is specious.

[dannyslag]

What always stand out to me when Shapiro or WLC speak is the shocking reminder that conservatives see them as intellectuals. That says a lot about conservatives, like how 1rst graders think 3rd graders are so smart and mature.

[TrussAdams]

Why does existing automatically mean greater than non existing? Superman is stronger, faster, smarter, and even nicer than I am. He has definitely inspired more people then me, and even been in more movies then me. By every metric, he is greater than I am, except that I exist. An imaginary being can be anything we want or need it to be, whereas a real being is limited by its existence. This is where theists tend to fail over and over. They have to demonstrate their claims by more than just making another claim.