What is the Ontological Argument? (William Lane Craig)

[EatMAndSml]

And of course your comments are pending approval. Just keep proving to me you're all nothing but cowards.

[drcraigvideos]

@EatMAndSml And of course your previous comment ("That was a load of sh** and you know it.") has no substance or intelligence whatsoever. Is it any wonder why I look over comments? Try to prove to me that there is such a thing as a rational youtube atheist who has the guts to use their brain.

[sunnyjim98]

DR CRAIG YOU ARE A LEGEND!!!! :D

[shark15]

I think most of us here would accept the law of excluded middle and concede that God either exists or does not exist. Therefore the true/real/actual probability of his existence is either 100% or 0%. We are ignorant of which probability is the real one, so we assign a probability in between the two. As long as we are unsure of God's existence, we will still maintain the possibility of his existence or non-existence because we are ultimately ignorant of the actual truth of the matter.

[bgiv2010]

@shark15 Unless, you're saying that given ALL actual factors, the probability would be either 1 or 0, but if we had all the factors, then a whole branch of mathematics would be made obsolete.

[rhinnawi95]

I'm a huge fan of philosophy and intellectual thinking, and it's people like Dr. William Lane Craig who show that there's nothing illogical or non-intellectual about being a man of faith. It keeps me proud and strong in my faith in Christ, as well. Thanks, Dr. Craig. You're a real hero.

[MereChristianLogic]

Exodus 3:14 The ontological argument as explained to Moses. Also check out Hebrews 6:13. This argument is ancient.

[MereChristianLogic]

I love the Ontological argument as it explains monotheism, God's nature, and that we will experience him personally.

[FaithAloneGraceAlone]

It's funny how atheists want to claim the superior knowledge card, but when someone comes along and challenges them to think... they shrivel.

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@FaithAloneGraceAlone

"they shrivel"

They don't shrivel so much as resort to Ad Hominem attacks and their usual fallacious arguments, such as the argument from evil, one of the 10 ten worst objections to the KCA, "the Ontological argument works with unicorns", and similar junk.

[Intellectual4God]

Guys just a heads up the Ontological Argument is probably the most confusing argument for the existence of God, I'm not saying its invalid but it would be difficult for most to understand and putting it into one minute apologist form will make it even more confusing, i highly recommend you all check out DrCraigs full speech on the matter or if you still cant get it then at least start on something easier to understand such as the cosmological argument

[kevdog88superstar]

i dont get this :/ is there another vid on youtube which talks about the Ontological Argument that would be more easy for me to understand?? :)

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@kevdog88superstar

"is there another vid on youtube which talks about the Ontological Argument that would be more easy for me to understand?? "

/watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg

After watching this video, I went from barely understanding the argument to having it become one of my favorites, and I've yet to have an Atheist give a good objection to it.

[PacmanBonez]

17 atheists w/ accounts

[jselvrom]

This argument it doesn't work Craig. God is possible yes, but being possible doesn't mean it exists. It's possible to hold your breath for 30 minutes under water, but that doesn't mean that anything is alive to prove it right. So only plausible. More agnostic then anything, being unknown but we might know in the future.

[drcraigvideos]

@jselvrom *SIGH* Please learn the ontological argument. Craig is saying God (a maximally great Being) is possible in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. There's a difference.

[5starsoldier]

@jselvrom ROFL!!!!!!!!

[NLPNVC]

This argument sounds a little self referencing... and yet some how linguistically intriguing to me. Thanks for posting this.

[ResistDeception]

I love Dr. Craig, so please nobody take this as an attack, but I simply do NOT see how this argument is legitimate. It is so obviously flawed.

I really DO feel like I understand the rationale of the argument, but it just seems that it is simply a way to define oneself into a winning position, with no real logical justification for doing so. Why couldn't this same argument be made for the multiverse hypothesis?

This defense is the definitely the WEAKEST in Craig's arsenal.

The moral is the best.

[TheisticThinker]

@ResistDeception It is easy to feel like this regarding the Ontological Argument, but actually, it follows logically in Modal Logic. You should look up Robert E. Maydole, a professor of Philosophy and Logic, he analyzes every version of the Ontological Argument in the Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology (Very technincal though) and makes an proves his own version of the argument by using very sophisticated logic.

[TheisticThinker]

@ResistDeception "Why couldn't this same argument be made for the multiverse hypothesis?" Well, the Multiverse wouldn't exist in every possible world. The Multiverse as presented in Chaotic and Eternal Inflation, isn't eternal in the past for example. So it wouldn't exist necessarily.

[ResistDeception]

@TheisticThinker I understand that once you define your terms & state your premises, the conclusion DOES follow logically. It just seems like logical gymnastics, though.

I find it unthinkable that ANY atheist could EVER be convinced by this argument. It strikes me as sort of a last-resort "I'm right, you're wrong! Neener neener neener."

IF we WERE to define the multiverse as a necessarily existing continuum which exists in all possible worlds, would its possibility indicate its existence?

[Fantasticlist]

Fantastic

[assasin1870]

This guys talkin crap..it makes no sense what he's saying

[drcraigvideos]

@assasin1870 Well, it actually makes sense if you can use your brain to think. That helps.

[time2learnnow]

@drcraigvideos If it's possible that I have a car, but there really isn't a car in my yard, then there must be a car in my yard. RIGHT?

Now it's possible that there's a car in my yard, but when I checked, there were no car. The same can be said for the ontological argument. PERIOD!!!!!

[drcraigvideos]

@time2learnnow Uh, yeah, your car is parallel to a maximally great being. You're very smart.

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@time2learnnow

"The same can be said for the ontological argument"

Of course not, because unlike a maximally-great being, your car is not a necessary entity.

[KBrimstone]

@assasin1870 Translation?!?! I don't understand logical inference and it's not rhetoric so this must be "crap."

[Recordbhoy]

@assasin1870 Maybe to you , because you're an idiot 

[dejesusluisx]

@assasin1870 Can you think of a possible world in which God exists? If you think God is a possibility, then God exists. The logical deduction comes from the fact that God is an all powerful being, so if God can exist in a possible world, then He would know all about the other worlds and since He has the power, He will move to exists in those too. So if God can exist in a possible world, then God exists in every possible world. Therefore God exists in our world.

[ResistDeception]

@dejesusluisx

If I understand it correctly, it is NOT that God is just so extremely powerful that he moves to inhabit all other possible worlds.

The argument is that if we define God as an omnipotent being which must exist in any possible world, then by default, any possible world where he could exist would be one where any possible world from THAT perspective must ALSO have God, this being one of them.

It seems cheap to me. I don't get how you couldn't tie it to ANY other metaphysical concept.

[Bigjon145]

Atheists giving the thumbs down because they don't understand the argument.

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@Bigjon145

Or simply because this video has Dr. Craig in it. Probably both :-)

[imkluu]

@Bigjon145 They understand it and it proves their thinking wrong so they don't want anyone else to hear it.

[sleepykid156]

I had so much trouble digesting the Ontological Argument in my Intro to Philosophy Class in college. This vid helped me get a grasp at the Ontological Argument

[daltonsalt4700]

I love the one minute apologist intro lol.

[oneandonlyrisenangel]

The one minute Apologist..is now two minutes. lol

[theemurf]

I'm a Christian, and I follow most of the arguements I've seen so far, but I don't follow this quite. I don't see how the conclusion follow from the premisses of God's possible existence. Does anyone have a thorough explanation or know where I might find one? I would love to have this arguement in my arsenal but I couldn't defend it and don't understand it.

[drcraigvideos]

@theemurf The notation in the video should give you a link to more details on the Ontological argument.

[BioIslam]

It all makes sense to me until we get to "in all possible worlds" business. What does he mean by that?

We prolly have had to study philosophy to understand what he means.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

one of the best lucid and concise formulation of the ontological argument.

[Inmatinus]

@TheDutchPhilosopher

I so agree with that.

[time2learnnow]

@Inmatinus I don't because this made me a non believer. Just take this example : If you don't have a pen in your hand and still say It's possible you may have a pen in your hand, then a pen must exist in your hand. So the atheist have to think you really really have a pen in your hand. Can anyone see the irrational logic in this? This god is so stupid, lazy and inept to come down to explain all the happenings in the world