The Ontological Argument - Part 2 - William Lane Craig

[Repulver]

Have you ever seen a perfect living being in nature? If not, how can you conlude that there must be such a being? On the contrary, it seems that a perfect being would be a contradiction to life itself, because living implies changing! Also, given the fact, that everything we see today can be explainded without the need of a creator, how do you get to the idea of such a being anyway? All that is left is wishful thinking, which is a comon phenomenon among humans.

[ChristusVlCTOR]

What this argument does is force the Athiest to provide proof that God's existence is impossible, whilst the Thiest labours to prove that God's existence is possible.

It strips the Athiest of their "you can't prove a universal negative" cop out.

[kvash3154]

I think people have a hard time grasping the philosophic use of the word "worlds", because the word isn't used like that by most people, in their day to day lives. Its not the idea of "multi-worlds", but more like what logically could be. Like 1+1=2, which would be true in all "could be's", but 1+1=3, could not be true at all. I know I had a lot of trouble with it, largely because certain words had different definitions then what I was use too.

[JCrownwell]

Great lecture

[Crownw3]

Great podcasts.

[joehardysr]

Thank you for posting these videos.