Also, yeah the only conclusion is that a deity that does exist would never be as impressive as a deity that does not exist...but then again, who cares?
This argument is poor. There is no possible world in which a being which exists does not exist. The argument fails due to being logically incoherent. Parodies of the argument always fail and show a lack of understanding of basic logic.
@NewVinland I'm afraid it is you who shows a lack of understanding of basic logic. It is not a disproof of god, it is a counter-argument to Anslem. This argument, while a parody, is a valid "reductio ad absurdum".
The same reasoning used in Anslem's argument is applied with reasonable premises, but it leads to a logically incoherent conclusion... which is the whole point! This demonstrates that the reasoning used to derive said conclusion is flawed, thus the original argument is also flawed.
I Contend that a GOD that did not exist then made itself exist and then create the Universe would be superior to both an Existing & non-existing Creator.
@hybrid572 1. Video has a picture of Richard Dawkins book cover. 2. The description says this argument IS NOT RD's but is mentioned by him in his book. 3. RD specifically states, as does the description, that the "argument" is meant as a jokey parody. 4. a big FAIL to everyone who keeps thinking it is serious or that it is RD's argument in any case.
@hybrid572 I agree with you. Although being a funny argument it does not constitute a logical reductio ad absurdum to Anselm. I state this because 1. God is the greatest being that which no other greater being can be conceived. 2. God being the greatest being can only do the logically possible E.G. He cannot make a square triangle as this contravenes logic. 3. Ergo God being great and a neccessary creator is a predicate of his simplicity and so Anselm would still maintain that he must exist.
@hybrid572 I agree with u up til the darwinism comment and i don't agree with that because there is no such thing. Thats just a label that creationists made up for people who know evolution to be the truth. There is no group in existence that call themselves darwinists evolution is not a life path we chose it is just a scientifiic fact like any other. I believe that life probably exisists on other planets are you going to call me an alienist?
@SuperGil420 I called it "Dawkins-ism" with the hyphen to emphasise the fact that it was not a real word, merely attributing the concept of an "-ism" to Dawkins and his beliefs. I'm a solid atheist who believes in evolution; I'm merely pointing out that quoting the word of Dawkins as truth is no better an argument than quoting the Bible in the same manner.
1 - Dawkins never said this, his argument is probabilistic, which proves that theists can´t read properly.
2 - Dawkins extracts several arguments of his book from thinkers like Hume and Kant. Dumb heretics, anyway. All are burning now.
3 - The argument is not stated as a syllogism in Dawkins book, he never made a "list" of premises followed by a conclusion. Craig is a straw man maniac preaching to delusional morons.
4 - Conclusion: Christianity is the same old stupidity.
@hybrid572 Also, no one is trying to prove that God doesn't exist...at least, it would be intellectually dishonest to try to do so. We are simply poking our fingers through the holes in the "proofs" that it does exist and saying, "What about this one? Can you fill this one up, too?"
We merely try to make sure any argument for the existence of God is strong and logical because really, who wouldn't want to live in a universe where a deity exists?
@Jcolinsol The hilarity of your unfounded belief makes me giggle. What your basically saying is that you believe in God no matter what evidence is presented. Well done, thats called blind faith and occassionaly leads people to fly planes into buildings, kill people or blow themselves up(the list is practicaly non-exhaustive). Round of applause to you for being extremely intelligent *clap* *clap*
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You should be more careful, you are making some baseless inferences, without a full understanding of my position. In fact, I hold no beliefs of any kind. You didn't grasp what I was really saying.
I can see that this kind of thinking has lead you to some bigotry already, i.e. your thinking that terrorism is motivated by religion, rather than politics.
@AgApE010 Once again, someone who is incapable of following a simple line or argument (or reading a video description). The above argument is (1) not even mine, and (2) meant to be jocular and satirical.
Oh, I can clearly tell the video is meant to be a joke by how you present Dawkins' *ahem* representation of the argument from the God Delusion.
In any case, many of the atheists on here, bless their little hearts, saw this as a sound refutation of the Ontological Argument. Thus, I felt all the more compelled to respond.
@AgApE010 Impossible is impossible. Scientists already made elementary particles out of nothing. Also, they promised to create a god in the nearest future ))
No, they have not. The premise that you're thinking of is that concerning virtual particles coming into existence spontaneously out of a quantum vacuum. However:
There are different interpretations of what is going on here by quantum physicists. Secondly, a quantum vacuum is not "nothing."
#4 is internally inconsistent. Apart from any and every other imaginable premise, it is false because it contains a contradiction. That is to say, it's not only false, but it's meaningless. Non-existence is a not a handicap that creators must (or can overcome). Non-Existence prevents there from being a creator. Therefore, all creators must exist. That which does not exist cannot create anything. Creation entails agency and agency entails existence.
No, I get it. It's supposed to be a counterfactual for the actual ontological argument. EXCEPT...it fails completely. The ontological argument does not have any internally inconsistent premises. Being snarky and pompous only works when you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.
Ahh, I see. You're incapable of actually providing any substantive argument so you've resorted to the intellectual coward's last resort...loathness. Instead of actually explaining how or why I've made a logical mistake, you've simply asserted that 'I don't get it' and that 'you do'. What exactly won't I admit? That logically inconsistent premises belong anywhere in valid arguments? You're right, I won't admit that. I never will because I, unlike you, actually know how to reason well.
@barifkin31 ... Nope.. you don't get the fact that by parodying the argument you draw attention to it's flaws.
Instead, what you do is immediately attempt to attack the parody as though that would somehow help.
It entirely misses the point.
The ontological argument is a joke, even Aquinas thought so.. and yet when someone makes fun of it.. you indignantly continue as though it were rock solid.
This is your third reply to me and still you've not offered what these supposed objections are. You are beyond ignorant. Am I just supposed to take you at your word? I'm familiar with the history of the argument. I own and have read Anselm's Proslogion. I know about Gaunilo's Island and Kant's coins. I find neither one of those objections particularly potent and I've offered you reasons why. All you've done is lob insults. Hmm...I wonder who's being more forthcoming.
So instead of actually providing any objections, you're content to just oppose the argument on its historicity. Good work. It's almost like I'm beating a dead horse. I offer an argument, you call me names, I bolster my argument by presupposing your possible objections, you call me more names, I refute possible objections that I myself raised to my own argument, you continue to call names. Hmmm...good discussion. Maybe instead of trolling videos on youtube, you should read more books.
Your appeal to authority (via Aquinas' objection) is nothing more than that...a fallacy. You've called the argument a joke but mysteriously not provided any reasons why you think so. I know...being cool and hip on youtube is very in vogue amongst angsty teenagers, but if you want people to take you seriously, you have to give reasons for your argument. Making bare assertions is not an argument. All you've done is ridicule, mock, and insult; try actually thinking, arguing or reasoning
this refute only applies if God is a 'thing' , if God is not a thing then the attack just shows that Dawkins doesn't get it. A thing is inside space and time but even Aquinas says that God is beyond our understanding. Hume and Kant talk about God as a thing too - existence is not a predicate of a thing, yeah for sure. However no one seriously thinks of God as a thing (unless you dont get it and compare God to other things such as teapots!!) so Dick is right to say athiests are fools!
- OK.. so let's define god as not a thing... or even " no-thing " to make it easier.
In fact, whatever god is defined as, if it would make the argument fail... let's not define god as that.
Lets define god as something that we cannot label or nail down in anyway, that can have any properties we like, and we reserve the right to change those properties if it doesn't suit us.
@Roper122 thanks but logically if God is outside space and time then can god be a thing? how about 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' as anselm said , his definition is not of a thing but the criticisms are based on god as a superman figure and existence is not a predicate of things (as Kant/Russell said) but as god is not a thing which lots of people dont get eg dawkins, it doesnt apply - the argument is a priori not posterioi
@philosophyteacher Simply saying that it's a priori may suffice to scare away laymen... but you still have to justify it. It's still a collection of meaningless terms.
god isn't a thing.. he's outside of space and time...etc etc ...
god cowers away in philosophy it's vagaries are his only solace.
Funny thing is... if Thomas Aquinas rejects the Ontological argument.. he's a great christian thinker...
@Roper122 but why do they reject it? Aquinas says we can't know and understand nature of god, but for dawkins he wants evidence (of an a prori argument ) thats why hes an idiot!! Was the ontological argument written to convince the fool? Or was it to show the scholastic belief that faith and reason can work together?But the biggest fool is the one who thinks you can talk of god as a thing (aquinas' point and anselm's) but dick dawkins does ALL THE TIME which shows a lack of understanding
@Roper122 to talk of evidence implies that you are talking about a thing , same as hilarious russell teapot analogies they only work if god is a thing- the trouble nobody apart from small kids and perhaps atheists think of god as a thing, an object a superman/ santa claus figure etc so for dick to base all of his multi million media empire on this idea that god is a thing ( there's no empirical evidence therefore god does not exist) shows he has missed the idea, he should stick to fossils
@philosophyteacher ...I'm sorry, but while you may enjoy throwing mud at Dawkins ( in this case for not subscribing to a failed argument )...and not only him, but all the atheists who are like children...
Doesn't actually help...but seems very ...what's the term..childish?
Odd how quick the " philosophy teacher " descends into name calling.
There's a name for that too...maybe you should ask your students.
@Roper122 name calling? me? whom did i name call? i meant as i am sure you are aware that to think of god as a superman / thing in the space/ complicated thing is a childish way to understand the concept of god- I am talking about an incredibly rich and clever person here but he doesn't study theology so has a childish view of god - even my year 9 pupils know god is a not a thing inside space and time
...You're, sorry... When you used the words " fools ", " idiot ", not to mention the " childish " analogies, and the constant referring to Dawkins as Dick...you're obviously doing that for logical reasons.
Unfortunately for you, name calling ( unlike you're idea of a god ) is actually a " thing "... And you seem to enjoy it.
@Roper122 ah i understand your point now first of all :
Anselm in his ontological arguement Prosolgion 2/3 refers to the fool , my reference was to that (check it out for empirical evidence )
priori arguments are deductive and so to ask for evidence is idiotic
are you american ? everyone in uk knows :Richard "Dickie" Davies (born 30 April 1933, Wallasey, Merseyside) is a British television presenter, best known for presenting World of Sport from 1968 until 1985.
@Roper122 so dick is like an abbreviation of richard ohh you're so defensive! or does that make me a liar? no i used the childish anologies reduction ad absurdum to poke fun at RICHARD dawkins whom so many people revere with hallowed worship when his arguments have no evidence at all , even though he talks about evidence all the time- to give you one of his 'memes' where is the empirical evidence of that ?? so he can use terms with no evidence at all but writes a book called god delusion ha ha
@Roper122 yeah gulity of what? Judge roper , you set the rules? what's your idea of right and wrong then? and i want evidence pleae first before i reposnd to your charages.
yeah of course he is - private school and oxford educated, oxford professor and multi millionaire and he pretends he does n't know that a priori and deductive arguments don't have evidence- that is idiotic meaning 'senseless' like asking why isn't a circle square or wanting 4 angles in a triangle- as my year 7s say ownage!
@philosophyteacher ....Nope, I pointed out how you simply name calling...
You feigned ignorance... I gave evidence, and now, you offer the definition of the name.
So yes, I judge that I was correct... Unless you know of some reality where calling someone an idiot doesn't qualify as name calling ( or even even qualifies as mature philosophical discourse )
Funny thing is... Now you want to move on, because you realise ( but won't admit ) your mistake.
@Roper122 thats a debate? you are so sure that you are right! so am i right to assume that you are absolutely right or correct? if so why and how can you be correct - you thought i was calling dick dawkins 'a dick' so who was right? i told you in england dick is an abbreviation same as idiot is someone who doesn't use sense - i used the words correctly you misinterpreted them that's your problem maybe you aren't english so i aplogise but check any reputable dictionary to back up my usage
@Roper122 dawkins on his own website refers to peter kearney as a 'nasty little weasel' and then urges his readers to send an anti pope cartoon to 2 catholics“My suggestion is that we should do our best to make this joke go viral, beginning by sending hundreds of copies of it to these two addresses. But there are probably funnier jokes along the same lines, and I would encourage you to send as many as you can find.”- i cannot have any respect for anyone who does such stuff- you defend him?
@philosophyteacher ...Interesting response, so you have no respect for that kind of behaviour, and yet you engage in it yourself?
Hence claiming the high ground...how exactly?
Oddly enough nothing you've accused Dawkins of was in the middle of a supposed refutation, and I have no doubt if asked whether he was calling Kearney a name, Dawkins would simply reply, " Yes "
@Roper122 i told you dick is like an abbreviation and for him too mild a 'name ' to call him- or is that you are avoiding my comment about god - hide as you cant debate -- hay? hay?
@Roper122 i told you to look at prosolgion 2 and 3 then after you see that and read it see if you need to tell anyone that i was calling them a fool (empirical evidence 1) even your beloved ex professor says ' Nur nurny nur. all atheist are fools.' (God delusion , bantam press) boo hoo is he name calling too?!! so you took it out of context but i wont call you a name but it makes your comments childish - ooh i caught you out and told you off - Yeah for repeating dawkins words !!!!!
Instead of making ridiculous comments about me calling atheists fools when i was quoting dawkins himself and anselm... oh dear ... there's a name for that too .....hiding behind misunderstandings doesn't help ...are you going to talk of god as a thing again...compare god to a thing as a teapot or unicorn. use scientific laws (which only interpret the natural world) to disprove god..are we trying to win.?..or tell the truth...send abusive emails??
@Roper122 ha ha you're really clever - read the book and then you can cry - dawkins says all atheist are fools - boo hoo he called you all names - i call every one names and ....you even have a utube name roper dont cry about it my point is all athiests are fools all athiests are fools got it - clear enoough for you now - read the book above - called god delusion written by that rich man dawkins and see if you can find that line then aplogise if you're man enough as he said the line - i repeat
No.. actually, you never even got off the ground... you were unable to even to successfully defend yourself against the accusation of childish name calling...
You tried to deny it.. you tried to dismiss it... when an adult would have simply admitted it and moved on.
Now you are reduced to this... what a disappointment.
@Roper122 unsuccessful troll don't lie in future if you can't argue- you are disappointing because your only recourse is to lie when you know you have lost . unsuccessful troll next time read the book!! you americans are very sad (oopps i am only in year 12 myself ! LTM) troll off
@Roper122 dont name call boo hoo but you do lie i have lots of evidence in your postings LTM!! so you are a liar who can't argue and has to resort to childish lies and trolling come back when you up to a debate and read the book first
@Roper122 a lie is when a statement is known to be untrue by the person who makes it- Richard "Dickie" Davies i showed u this to prove that Dick is an abbreviation of Richard therefore that is not an insult- when you said it was , having seen this you persisted in full knowledge of this to say i was 'name calling' that is a lie. QED, i have no time to debate with liars and you will try to wriggle out of this one, you can only hide behind ridiculous claims
@Roper122 you hide behind a false idea of god as a thing and naively assume that god should be provable by evidence - analytic statements are not provable by evidence anymore then a square circle exists- that is no sense, hence idiotic case closed
you claim a persecution complex (name calling)and hide behind ad hominem lies- you don't even understand aquinas' point but use it he says God existence is analytically true - so i cant debate with you as you're clueless here - troll on
@Roper122 look you lie , i finally got you to admit that but as to your crap about 'truth' you don't even know what it is so to attempt to talk about 'admitting the truth' shows how childish you really are- next time do your homework before you attempt to debate it - i had hoped for better to to busy now we have to protest the president's visit- you can return to your fantasy world 'where everyone sings beatles songs and buys shares in EMI'
I'll be honest, ontology is confusing and hard to follow. I typically don't like these arguments because they seem too grounded in assumption. But great video, it was an interesting argument that I have not before heard.
Gasking's (whom Dawkins took this argument from) argument against the ontological argument actually proves God's existence, geniuses: watch?v=msiZDJwtZ6E.
@Roper122 Well, I only block people who aren't interested in a dialog but a monologue. If you had any brain capacity at all you ought to know there are plenty of trolls in the youtube world. But seeing how incredibly shallow you are I'm not surprised you actually think Dawkins did well in refuting the ontological argument. That's sad.
@drcraigvideos " I only block people who aren't interested in a dialog but a monologue "
Seems odd... quite a few of your videos don't allow comments at all.
Yes there are trolls, but they usually make fools of themselves and help your arguments.
You seem to be simply insulting me.. obviously I'm the one not willing to discuss...
Hmmmmm
As for Dawkins.. it is the Ontological argument that is embarrassing... Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant seemed to think so... Dawkins is in good company.
@Roper122 Well, if you saw the comments on some of the previous videos, you'd probably disallow comments to. There was an atheist who thought that posting links to pornographic websites had everything to do with the discussion. If you think that's appropriate then suit yourself. On the other hand, I think the rational thing to do is to disallow that trash.
Aquinas and Kant are geniuses but the problem is they actually know the ontological argument. Dawkins doesn't. It's obvious, he doesn't.
you cannot conceive of something that exists while not existing. There is a reason why this argument is so unpopular in the atheist community in comparison to the other arguments.
premise 1 has totally fallen in on itself, utter rubbish. The creation of the world is not the most marvelous thing imaginable therefore stops in its track right there. However, with the "un-dawked" ontological argument, the premise 1 only works if you believe in god. Both arguments fail to "prove" god's existence, but none the less... are not meaningless. If you think about it God by definition is beyond human conception, so how should we ever come to prove/disprove such a being? well, we cant.
1. A crazy idea can be assessed by the degree in which it suppresses logic.
2. The more fundamental a principle of logic is suppressed, the crazier the idea is.
3. The most fundamental principle of logic imaginable that can be suppressed is the law of non-contradiction.
4. Any argument which requires a Being (Existence) to "be" non-existent (Nonexistent) involves suppressing the most fundamental principle of logic imaginable.
A God "handicapped" by non-existence would be a lesser god than one with existence.
Besides, I believe arguments involving non-existence are self-defeating, since for the argument to work, it would require non-existence to exist, which is an impossibility.
Ergo 4 in this video states that "The most formidable handicap for creator is non-existence."
We all once did not exist, but now we exist. If we are the product of our own existence, then it is a marvelous achievement because we overcame our inexistence. This brings the argument to Ergo 5, "therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being namely one who created everything while NOT existing."
"The most formidable handicap of a creator would be non-existence."
FALSE. That's not a handicap at all because it negates 'creator-hood'. Creators don't exist if they don't exist, and to claim so flies in the face of analytic philosophy. One can stop listening to this sophmoric effort at point four.
Logical contradictions are illustrations of falsehood of the argument, and here this contradiction comes in in part of the argument *for* God, not *against* him.
Ergo 4, how can "creating" existence while being handicapped by non-existing be? which is beyond reasonable. One cannot create what governs one's existence.
Ergo 5, again, how can one create what governs one's existence. It's not logical. And one did not exist before to achieve one's inexistence.
Revised:
Ergo 4, It is greater to never be imposed by any handicap and create, than to achieve the same despite being posed by the challenge of non-existence. Therefore, a logical God exists.
Which shows Anselm's original argument to be illogical, as what's presented in the video is nothing more than an extrapolation of it. Indeed, it is illogical.
So, the conclusion I should draw is that there is no significant contradiction between a universe created by an all-powerful deity and an almost non-existent one? Very interesting indeed.
As we can know that only existence can give existence. So the premise should be revised to "It is greater to not be posed by the challenge of non-existence and achieve creating the universe, than to achieve the same with such disadvantage of non-existence." Therefore, if only existence can give existence, as non-existence does not exist, therefore, God exists.
That is not greater at all. What you're saying is it's more challenge to not be challenged than be challenged, which violates rule of non-contradiction.
And, of course, the latter part is plain circular logic, presuming god exists before arguing if he does.
(Of course, so does the argument and presented extrapolation in the video).
"What you're saying is it's more challenge to not be challenged than be challenged, which violates rule of non-contradiction."
That's circular logic, which I never said. To be challenged is the negation of not be challenged, yet undergirds the latter part of my argument. The law of non-contradiction is violated by imposing challenge on a creator. Urgo 7 "God does not exist" is indeed circular logic, or affirming the consequence.
In order: it's a contradiction, you said it, yes what you said was contradicting, what the fuck gives you the idea, what the FUCK gives you the idea?..
Not one thing you've said here makes any sense. Are you sure you remember what the discussion was even about?
You said that I said "it's more challenge to not be challenged than be challenged" which is false. That is circular logic, and is not what I'm arguing. Then you say that I presume God exist, then use circular logic to conclude that. But I am showing that this video, in presuming in Ergo 7, that "God does not exist" is circular instead, which commits the fallacy of affirming the consequence. To be challenged is the negation of not be challenged, which undergirds my presumption that God exists.
It's a contradiction, and has nothing to do with circular logic (circular logic is presuming the conclusion in any part of the argument). And that is *exactly* what you said in "Ergo 4", just a few posts down.
And yes, you do presuppose that God (not just any god either) exists before starting your argument. Doing this before arguing whether he does IS circular.
"God does not exist" is a claim, it's not even a logical construct. I have to conclude you have no idea what circular logic is...
"It's a contradiction, and has nothing to do with circular logic (circular logic is presuming the conclusion in any part of the argument). And that is *exactly* what you said in "Ergo 4", just a few posts down."
I presented Ergo 4 as being illogical, ..."The most formidable handicap for creator is non-existence" How can one create one's own existence? I'm not presupposing anything here.
""God does not exist" is a claim, it's not even a logical construct. I have to conclude you have no idea what circular logic is..."
"God does not exist" is also a presupposition, which is not grounded properly in this argument, which I've showed in my first post. When "handicap" is imposed onto "creator" that is circular. You affirm the consequence. It's like saying "if it rains, it gets wet, it's wet, therefore it's raining." Yes, I am well aware of circular logic.
"In fact, not "just" god, but a god that doesn't want to be challenged, which also what you're trying to argue for..."
If everything, and everyone, and every entity is challenged, or handicapped with non-existence, then nothing would exist. Challenge is a handicap imposed by its negation "not challenge" as existence is absolute, as non-existence does not exist. This logic undergirds my "presupposition" that God exists.
You're not making even grammatical sense here. Could you re-phrase?
Nice to see you marked as spam by the way... Confirms my theory. I bet it's due to you quoting me, when I try to do that myself YouTube just blocks my post.
Well, in it you say to the effect of "But this is illogical, therefore it can't apply" which would be fine and dandy if you didn't then use this point in the context of what you just said is illogical therefore is logical.
It's an implied premise that's the culprit, basically. What you're basically saying is: "This would make god non-existent, but since god exists, it clearly it isn't so."
It's very confusing. Which is why I asked you to re-phrase.
Since "existence" is absolute, meaning "it just is," because non-existence does not exist, and we were once handicapped with non-existence, there has to be existence before us to bring upon our existence. This logic holds to the presupposition that God exists.
We have to presuppose either God is the self-exiting one, or the universe is itself self-existing. But the universe is not infintely old because it has been proven scientifically and philosophically that it began a "finite" time ago. Thank you SexyMelon, I enjoyed talking to you.
"Self-existing" doesn't make much sense as a word.
Also, no: we know *our* universe - as it exists now, that is - had a start some 14 bil years ago, but we don't know what came before it (albeit the term is inapplicable because time did not exist prior to primary expansion). No matter which point we assume as start of anything, it doesn't logically follow that some *being*, less of all a specific being, had to be the cause, that it still exists, etc.
we don't know that the universe is not infinite. all we know is that the universe in its current form started "x" amount of years ago. stephen hawking used to talk about this and i tend to agree with him. for all we know there was some sort of universe before the bug bang and the big band essentially wiped the slate clean, destroying any evidence of a previus universe. therefore we start from scratch
Right. I believe the very concept of absolute existence proves Existence exists. One that pre-exists our existence and is responsible for our existence.
If non-existence was posed to the less great existence, then less great existence, namely the universe, would not exist. The premise that "greater is to achieve existence posed by the challenge of non-existence" is false as non-existence does not exist. ONly existence can give existence. And if less great existence exists, then it's necessary precondition would have to be great existence as presented in Anselm's Ontological argument in premise 2, it is greater to exist than not to exist.
'The God Delusion' was the worst book ever written on natural atheology. What is wrong with this parody of the ontological argument is that it assumes there is (possibly) such a thing as a being which has no being. This is in blatant violation of the law of non-contradiction. Since one of the premises is manifestly faulse, the argument as a whole is unsound. It is important to note that the actual ontological argument (for God's existence) does not commit this beginner-level fallacy.
Excellent. This is why the Ontological Argument = mental masturbation. It can be used to prove any thing at all, no matter how ridiculous. My advice to Christians who play with the OA is put your brain back in your pants before you go blind.
Exactly. And if it were the case that God could do something contradictory such as creating something while not existing, then he could will himself back into existence anyway (or lift the rock that he cannot lift). If you buy the premise that God can do something contradictory, then you buy it in all cases. One contradictory action is as good as another. In the end, this argument doesn't show us anything, however it certainly is a humorous parody of the various ontological arguments.
Ironically what atheists really need perhaps in this day and age to get to the truth (no matter what that truth may be) is doubt. Doubt that they have come up with the magic key to wish away the questions.
Yeah, thanks for the biting sarcasm. You said, "I'm not certain Dawkins believes this is a parody." This is a statement that I find it difficult to make from one who has actually read the book. Dawkins' opinion of this statement is clear. Hence my comment.
It doesn't excuse me, but I've run into quite a few unpleasant people who follow this line of thought as gospel, and use it as an excuse to denigrate me and others.
Figures the one time I get up the gumption to lash out, its a reasonable person the other end.
Where knowledge ends Religion begins.. That quote single handidly sums up religion. I don't see how any educated people can believe in God or a supreme being.
Speaking as a raised Roman Catholic I see/saw religion for what it really is, a ploy to part believers from their cash. I'm a fully grown man, I no longer believe in anything "fantasy" like everyone else. We grew up to stop believing in Santa Clause.. see the link?
This argument fails because non-existence isn't a property of being. i.e. there is no possible world in which a non-existant God created the Universe.
It's hard to prove that leprachauns don't exist. It's hard to prove there's no god. But it's easy to prove the Christian God doesn't exist. It is logically impossible that any being can have the following characteristics: 1- all-knowing 2- all-powerful 3- actively involved in human affairs 4- loving in nature. 1 and 2 and 3 are consistent. 1 and 3 and 4 can be consistent. But to see evil and choose not to stop it one cannot be loving. Mutually exclusive attributes equals nonexistence.
It's charming, but contradicts itself..
StygianDysnomia 2 months ago
Also, yeah the only conclusion is that a deity that does exist would never be as impressive as a deity that does not exist...but then again, who cares?
bgiv2010 3 months ago
I'd like to think that a creation is considered more impressive, the higher creation-to-creator skill ratio is.
That is, it would be more impressive for a human to create the universe than it would be for a deity to create a handwritten letter...
Also, one must consider the creative skill of the observer because a handwritten letter would be more impressive to a child than to me.
Nice vid otherwise!
bgiv2010 3 months ago
This argument is poor. There is no possible world in which a being which exists does not exist. The argument fails due to being logically incoherent. Parodies of the argument always fail and show a lack of understanding of basic logic.
NewVinland 4 months ago
@NewVinland
This argument was intended to be a satire. The only thing I find funny about it, however, is that Richard Dawkins and his minions take it seriously.
THEEVANTHETOON 4 months ago
@NewVinland I'm afraid it is you who shows a lack of understanding of basic logic. It is not a disproof of god, it is a counter-argument to Anslem. This argument, while a parody, is a valid "reductio ad absurdum".
The same reasoning used in Anslem's argument is applied with reasonable premises, but it leads to a logically incoherent conclusion... which is the whole point! This demonstrates that the reasoning used to derive said conclusion is flawed, thus the original argument is also flawed.
huruey 3 months ago
@huruey What is the logically incoherent conclusion?
NewVinland 3 months ago
@huruey The conclusion that a being which exists does not exist, as you pointed out in the comment to which this is a reply.
huruey 3 months ago
I Contend that a GOD that did not exist then made itself exist and then create the Universe would be superior to both an Existing & non-existing Creator.
Peace & Strength,
-A.M.O.
iwanttocrashmybike 7 months ago
1 God does not exist, although there's no real way to prove it either way.
2 Richard Dawkins demonstrates a clear lack of logic and common sense, but is popular among atheists because he is preaching to the converted.
3 Listing a sense of dodgy-at-best premises to come to a preconceived conclusion is pretty much the opposite of what we define as a logical argument.
4 Conclusion: Dawkins-ism is the new Christianity
hybrid572 9 months ago
@hybrid572 1. Video has a picture of Richard Dawkins book cover. 2. The description says this argument IS NOT RD's but is mentioned by him in his book. 3. RD specifically states, as does the description, that the "argument" is meant as a jokey parody. 4. a big FAIL to everyone who keeps thinking it is serious or that it is RD's argument in any case.
BryanAJParry 9 months ago 3
@hybrid572 I agree with you. Although being a funny argument it does not constitute a logical reductio ad absurdum to Anselm. I state this because 1. God is the greatest being that which no other greater being can be conceived. 2. God being the greatest being can only do the logically possible E.G. He cannot make a square triangle as this contravenes logic. 3. Ergo God being great and a neccessary creator is a predicate of his simplicity and so Anselm would still maintain that he must exist.
humphrey598 8 months ago
@hybrid572 I agree with u up til the darwinism comment and i don't agree with that because there is no such thing. Thats just a label that creationists made up for people who know evolution to be the truth. There is no group in existence that call themselves darwinists evolution is not a life path we chose it is just a scientifiic fact like any other. I believe that life probably exisists on other planets are you going to call me an alienist?
SuperGil420 5 months ago
@SuperGil420 I called it "Dawkins-ism" with the hyphen to emphasise the fact that it was not a real word, merely attributing the concept of an "-ism" to Dawkins and his beliefs. I'm a solid atheist who believes in evolution; I'm merely pointing out that quoting the word of Dawkins as truth is no better an argument than quoting the Bible in the same manner.
hybrid572 5 months ago
@hybrid572 sorry misread your post
SuperGil420 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hybrid572 1. By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
2. Possibly a maximally great being does not exist.
3. Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that
emailpobox666 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hybrid572 4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist
emailpobox666 4 months ago
@hybrid572
1 - Dawkins never said this, his argument is probabilistic, which proves that theists can´t read properly.
2 - Dawkins extracts several arguments of his book from thinkers like Hume and Kant. Dumb heretics, anyway. All are burning now.
3 - The argument is not stated as a syllogism in Dawkins book, he never made a "list" of premises followed by a conclusion. Craig is a straw man maniac preaching to delusional morons.
4 - Conclusion: Christianity is the same old stupidity.
lfzadra 3 months ago
@hybrid572 Also, no one is trying to prove that God doesn't exist...at least, it would be intellectually dishonest to try to do so. We are simply poking our fingers through the holes in the "proofs" that it does exist and saying, "What about this one? Can you fill this one up, too?"
We merely try to make sure any argument for the existence of God is strong and logical because really, who wouldn't want to live in a universe where a deity exists?
bgiv2010 3 months ago
I love the idea of human beings trying to logically deduce the existence or non-existence of god. I bet the hilarity of it makes God giggle.
Jcolinsol 9 months ago
@Jcolinsol I dout God, being a God and not a mammal, would LAUGH at anything. I dout he even can.
BryanAJParry 9 months ago 3
@BryanAJParry Oh but remember, God can do anything!!! lol
bgiv2010 3 months ago
@Jcolinsol The hilarity of your unfounded belief makes me giggle. What your basically saying is that you believe in God no matter what evidence is presented. Well done, thats called blind faith and occassionaly leads people to fly planes into buildings, kill people or blow themselves up(the list is practicaly non-exhaustive). Round of applause to you for being extremely intelligent *clap* *clap*
soulfunkcity 8 months ago
@soulfunkcity
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You should be more careful, you are making some baseless inferences, without a full understanding of my position. In fact, I hold no beliefs of any kind. You didn't grasp what I was really saying.
I can see that this kind of thinking has lead you to some bigotry already, i.e. your thinking that terrorism is motivated by religion, rather than politics.
Jcolinsol 8 months ago
A non-existent being creating is logically incoherent. There is no possible world where a non-existent being exists.
Your brain = broken.
AgApE010 1 year ago 2
@AgApE010 Once again, someone who is incapable of following a simple line or argument (or reading a video description). The above argument is (1) not even mine, and (2) meant to be jocular and satirical.
Cheers
BryanAJParry 10 months ago
@BryanAJParry
-
Oh, I can clearly tell the video is meant to be a joke by how you present Dawkins' *ahem* representation of the argument from the God Delusion.
In any case, many of the atheists on here, bless their little hearts, saw this as a sound refutation of the Ontological Argument. Thus, I felt all the more compelled to respond.
AgApE010 10 months ago
@AgApE010 Impossible is impossible. Scientists already made elementary particles out of nothing. Also, they promised to create a god in the nearest future ))
MrSwofis 1 week ago
@MrSwofis
No, they have not. The premise that you're thinking of is that concerning virtual particles coming into existence spontaneously out of a quantum vacuum. However:
There are different interpretations of what is going on here by quantum physicists. Secondly, a quantum vacuum is not "nothing."
AgApE010 1 week ago
#4 is internally inconsistent. Apart from any and every other imaginable premise, it is false because it contains a contradiction. That is to say, it's not only false, but it's meaningless. Non-existence is a not a handicap that creators must (or can overcome). Non-Existence prevents there from being a creator. Therefore, all creators must exist. That which does not exist cannot create anything. Creation entails agency and agency entails existence.
Once any premise is false, the argument fails.
barifkin31 1 year ago
@barifkin31 ... I think you've entirely missed the point there.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122
No, I get it. It's supposed to be a counterfactual for the actual ontological argument. EXCEPT...it fails completely. The ontological argument does not have any internally inconsistent premises. Being snarky and pompous only works when you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.
barifkin31 1 year ago
@barifkin31 .. Ummmmm no you don't get it.
And that whole little explanation just made that point abundantly clear.
Well.... actually let's be fair.. you do get it.. because you're trying to come up with an argument for it.
But you won't admit it... so you continue to play games.
It is galling when someone holds up a mirror to your nonsense.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122
Ahh, I see. You're incapable of actually providing any substantive argument so you've resorted to the intellectual coward's last resort...loathness. Instead of actually explaining how or why I've made a logical mistake, you've simply asserted that 'I don't get it' and that 'you do'. What exactly won't I admit? That logically inconsistent premises belong anywhere in valid arguments? You're right, I won't admit that. I never will because I, unlike you, actually know how to reason well.
barifkin31 1 year ago
@barifkin31 ... Nope.. you don't get the fact that by parodying the argument you draw attention to it's flaws.
Instead, what you do is immediately attempt to attack the parody as though that would somehow help.
It entirely misses the point.
The ontological argument is a joke, even Aquinas thought so.. and yet when someone makes fun of it.. you indignantly continue as though it were rock solid.
Like I said.. you don't get it.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122
This is your third reply to me and still you've not offered what these supposed objections are. You are beyond ignorant. Am I just supposed to take you at your word? I'm familiar with the history of the argument. I own and have read Anselm's Proslogion. I know about Gaunilo's Island and Kant's coins. I find neither one of those objections particularly potent and I've offered you reasons why. All you've done is lob insults. Hmm...I wonder who's being more forthcoming.
barifkin31 1 year ago
@barifkin31 " I find neither one of those objections particularly potent "
- Oh?.. Oh don't you? Well... that settles it then. Phew.
" All you've done is lob insults "
- Well.. what can you expect of " angsty teenagers " ... who accuse people of being " snarky and pompous " and use four letter words in their posts.
" All you've done is ridicule, mock "
- And don't forget parody.. which is what the argument does... which is the point you missed... which is what I was saying... : )
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122
So instead of actually providing any objections, you're content to just oppose the argument on its historicity. Good work. It's almost like I'm beating a dead horse. I offer an argument, you call me names, I bolster my argument by presupposing your possible objections, you call me more names, I refute possible objections that I myself raised to my own argument, you continue to call names. Hmmm...good discussion. Maybe instead of trolling videos on youtube, you should read more books.
barifkin31 1 year ago
@barifkin31 " you're content to just oppose the argument on its historicity. "
- Nope.. nowhere have I done that.
" you call me names "
- As I pointed out, you're the one with the swearing and ad homs.. but whatever.
" you call me more names,"
- In fact.. I haven't called you a single name, but obviously it suits you to pretend that.
" Maybe instead of trolling videos on youtube "
- Commenting that you missed the point.. is not trolling.
Anything else?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122
Your appeal to authority (via Aquinas' objection) is nothing more than that...a fallacy. You've called the argument a joke but mysteriously not provided any reasons why you think so. I know...being cool and hip on youtube is very in vogue amongst angsty teenagers, but if you want people to take you seriously, you have to give reasons for your argument. Making bare assertions is not an argument. All you've done is ridicule, mock, and insult; try actually thinking, arguing or reasoning
barifkin31 1 year ago
this refute only applies if God is a 'thing' , if God is not a thing then the attack just shows that Dawkins doesn't get it. A thing is inside space and time but even Aquinas says that God is beyond our understanding. Hume and Kant talk about God as a thing too - existence is not a predicate of a thing, yeah for sure. However no one seriously thinks of God as a thing (unless you dont get it and compare God to other things such as teapots!!) so Dick is right to say athiests are fools!
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher " if God is not a thing "
- OK.. so let's define god as not a thing... or even " no-thing " to make it easier.
In fact, whatever god is defined as, if it would make the argument fail... let's not define god as that.
Lets define god as something that we cannot label or nail down in anyway, that can have any properties we like, and we reserve the right to change those properties if it doesn't suit us.
Great way to win an argument.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 thanks but logically if God is outside space and time then can god be a thing? how about 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' as anselm said , his definition is not of a thing but the criticisms are based on god as a superman figure and existence is not a predicate of things (as Kant/Russell said) but as god is not a thing which lots of people dont get eg dawkins, it doesnt apply - the argument is a priori not posterioi
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher Simply saying that it's a priori may suffice to scare away laymen... but you still have to justify it. It's still a collection of meaningless terms.
god isn't a thing.. he's outside of space and time...etc etc ...
god cowers away in philosophy it's vagaries are his only solace.
Funny thing is... if Thomas Aquinas rejects the Ontological argument.. he's a great christian thinker...
if Dawkins does it.. he's an idiot.
Feel free to list some more names
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 but why do they reject it? Aquinas says we can't know and understand nature of god, but for dawkins he wants evidence (of an a prori argument ) thats why hes an idiot!! Was the ontological argument written to convince the fool? Or was it to show the scholastic belief that faith and reason can work together?But the biggest fool is the one who thinks you can talk of god as a thing (aquinas' point and anselm's) but dick dawkins does ALL THE TIME which shows a lack of understanding
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@Roper122 to talk of evidence implies that you are talking about a thing , same as hilarious russell teapot analogies they only work if god is a thing- the trouble nobody apart from small kids and perhaps atheists think of god as a thing, an object a superman/ santa claus figure etc so for dick to base all of his multi million media empire on this idea that god is a thing ( there's no empirical evidence therefore god does not exist) shows he has missed the idea, he should stick to fossils
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ...I'm sorry, but while you may enjoy throwing mud at Dawkins ( in this case for not subscribing to a failed argument )...and not only him, but all the atheists who are like children...
Doesn't actually help...but seems very ...what's the term..childish?
Odd how quick the " philosophy teacher " descends into name calling.
There's a name for that too...maybe you should ask your students.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 name calling? me? whom did i name call? i meant as i am sure you are aware that to think of god as a superman / thing in the space/ complicated thing is a childish way to understand the concept of god- I am talking about an incredibly rich and clever person here but he doesn't study theology so has a childish view of god - even my year 9 pupils know god is a not a thing inside space and time
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher " whom did I call a name? "
...You're, sorry... When you used the words " fools ", " idiot ", not to mention the " childish " analogies, and the constant referring to Dawkins as Dick...you're obviously doing that for logical reasons.
Unfortunately for you, name calling ( unlike you're idea of a god ) is actually a " thing "... And you seem to enjoy it.
Wonder what else you're lying about?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 ah i understand your point now first of all :
Anselm in his ontological arguement Prosolgion 2/3 refers to the fool , my reference was to that (check it out for empirical evidence )
priori arguments are deductive and so to ask for evidence is idiotic
are you american ? everyone in uk knows :Richard "Dickie" Davies (born 30 April 1933, Wallasey, Merseyside) is a British television presenter, best known for presenting World of Sport from 1968 until 1985.
more empirical evidence
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@Roper122 so dick is like an abbreviation of richard ohh you're so defensive! or does that make me a liar? no i used the childish anologies reduction ad absurdum to poke fun at RICHARD dawkins whom so many people revere with hallowed worship when his arguments have no evidence at all , even though he talks about evidence all the time- to give you one of his 'memes' where is the empirical evidence of that ?? so he can use terms with no evidence at all but writes a book called god delusion ha ha
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ...shall I quote you then?
" that's why he's an idiot "
Now, you can pretend to provide reasons for the other insults ( unconvincing though they are )...
But unfortunately for you...you're guilty as charged.
Pity...you were far too easy to show up.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 yeah gulity of what? Judge roper , you set the rules? what's your idea of right and wrong then? and i want evidence pleae first before i reposnd to your charages.
yeah of course he is - private school and oxford educated, oxford professor and multi millionaire and he pretends he does n't know that a priori and deductive arguments don't have evidence- that is idiotic meaning 'senseless' like asking why isn't a circle square or wanting 4 angles in a triangle- as my year 7s say ownage!
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ..Guilty of name calling, and then pretending that you hadn't done it.
Do your year 7's outsmart you this easily?
Now you're resorting to " who made you the boss? "
Surely your students are more mature than this...or maybe you spend too much time with them?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 name calling ? i did explain what idiot means but if you dont accept by definition i dont give a
my point still stands so you were too easy to show up , you're the one who judged me (hmm is that mature or childish)you're guilty as charged
God is not a thing God is not a thing either you get or you dont , dick doesnt and nor do you
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ....Nope, I pointed out how you simply name calling...
You feigned ignorance... I gave evidence, and now, you offer the definition of the name.
So yes, I judge that I was correct... Unless you know of some reality where calling someone an idiot doesn't qualify as name calling ( or even even qualifies as mature philosophical discourse )
Funny thing is... Now you want to move on, because you realise ( but won't admit ) your mistake.
Debating's not as easy as it looks hey?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 thats a debate? you are so sure that you are right! so am i right to assume that you are absolutely right or correct? if so why and how can you be correct - you thought i was calling dick dawkins 'a dick' so who was right? i told you in england dick is an abbreviation same as idiot is someone who doesn't use sense - i used the words correctly you misinterpreted them that's your problem maybe you aren't english so i aplogise but check any reputable dictionary to back up my usage
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ...You did use the word idiot correctly, you labelled someone an idiot..
You called them a name.
You were caught out..and you don't like it...
( oh and the whole " Dick " argument... Childish in the extreme, you know very well you were being disrespectful )
What astounds me is how a grown man cannot simply admit a mistake and move on.
Again, you find me someone who doesn't consider being labelled a fool or an idiot as name calling.
Just admit it and we'll move on.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 dawkins on his own website refers to peter kearney as a 'nasty little weasel' and then urges his readers to send an anti pope cartoon to 2 catholics“My suggestion is that we should do our best to make this joke go viral, beginning by sending hundreds of copies of it to these two addresses. But there are probably funnier jokes along the same lines, and I would encourage you to send as many as you can find.”- i cannot have any respect for anyone who does such stuff- you defend him?
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ...Interesting response, so you have no respect for that kind of behaviour, and yet you engage in it yourself?
Hence claiming the high ground...how exactly?
Oddly enough nothing you've accused Dawkins of was in the middle of a supposed refutation, and I have no doubt if asked whether he was calling Kearney a name, Dawkins would simply reply, " Yes "
As opposed to your strategy of denial.
Curiously, Dawkins seems more honest.
Roper122 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roper122 i told you dick is like an abbreviation and for him too mild a 'name ' to call him- or is that you are avoiding my comment about god - hide as you cant debate -- hay? hay?
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roper122 i told you to look at prosolgion 2 and 3 then after you see that and read it see if you need to tell anyone that i was calling them a fool (empirical evidence 1) even your beloved ex professor says ' Nur nurny nur. all atheist are fools.' (God delusion , bantam press) boo hoo is he name calling too?!! so you took it out of context but i wont call you a name but it makes your comments childish - ooh i caught you out and told you off - Yeah for repeating dawkins words !!!!!
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@Roper122 in fact i know you're not english by your last comment !! so back to the debate then... is god outside space and time? or not?
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@Roper122 so we have to agree on a definition of god first use anselm's? 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'?
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@Roper122 where has it failed please show us.
Instead of making ridiculous comments about me calling atheists fools when i was quoting dawkins himself and anselm... oh dear ... there's a name for that too .....hiding behind misunderstandings doesn't help ...are you going to talk of god as a thing again...compare god to a thing as a teapot or unicorn. use scientific laws (which only interpret the natural world) to disprove god..are we trying to win.?..or tell the truth...send abusive emails??
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ...Have you admitted that you were simply calling Dawkins ( and atheists in general ) names?
I haven't seen that admission just yet...maybe I missed one of your posts.
....nope...
Makes perfect sense that you want to move on.
" Pay no attention to the name calling and clumsy attempt at a cover up "
We can move on whenever you want.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 ha ha you're really clever - read the book and then you can cry - dawkins says all atheist are fools - boo hoo he called you all names - i call every one names and ....you even have a utube name roper dont cry about it my point is all athiests are fools all athiests are fools got it - clear enoough for you now - read the book above - called god delusion written by that rich man dawkins and see if you can find that line then aplogise if you're man enough as he said the line - i repeat
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ..." i call every one names and ....my point is all athiests are fools all athiests are fools "
- And my point is... it's strange how quickly the " philosophy teacher " descends into " ha ha.. boo hoo "
I don't recall reading that in any philosophy text book.
I'm glad at least you've finally admitted that you are after all, simply throwing mud.
Although the long drawn out denial was very telling ( and boring )
OK.. well at least we have your measure.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 unsuccessful troll unsuccessful.
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ... Unsuccessful?
No.. actually, you never even got off the ground... you were unable to even to successfully defend yourself against the accusation of childish name calling...
You tried to deny it.. you tried to dismiss it... when an adult would have simply admitted it and moved on.
Now you are reduced to this... what a disappointment.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 unsuccessful troll don't lie in future if you can't argue- you are disappointing because your only recourse is to lie when you know you have lost . unsuccessful troll next time read the book!! you americans are very sad (oopps i am only in year 12 myself ! LTM) troll off
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ...Just sad really.
I don't lie, I don't troll, and you have quickly become irrelevant.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 dont name call boo hoo but you do lie i have lots of evidence in your postings LTM!! so you are a liar who can't argue and has to resort to childish lies and trolling come back when you up to a debate and read the book first
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher ...Please, by all means point out a lie.
Or else add it to your list of ridiculous claims.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 a lie is when a statement is known to be untrue by the person who makes it- Richard "Dickie" Davies i showed u this to prove that Dick is an abbreviation of Richard therefore that is not an insult- when you said it was , having seen this you persisted in full knowledge of this to say i was 'name calling' that is a lie. QED, i have no time to debate with liars and you will try to wriggle out of this one, you can only hide behind ridiculous claims
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher " i have no time to debate with liars "
Debate? All this has been is me slapping around... you haven't even got close to a debate.
I accused you of name calling, you pretended to be unaware... I found an example of you calling Dawkins an idiot. Case Closed.
You called all atheists fools...
Dick is a version of Richard.
" Idiot " on the other hand is a shortened version of?
( You are hopeless at this by the way )
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 you hide behind a false idea of god as a thing and naively assume that god should be provable by evidence - analytic statements are not provable by evidence anymore then a square circle exists- that is no sense, hence idiotic case closed
you claim a persecution complex (name calling)and hide behind ad hominem lies- you don't even understand aquinas' point but use it he says God existence is analytically true - so i cant debate with you as you're clueless here - troll on
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher " you hide behind a false idea of god as a thing "
- we haven't even got to god yet : )
" you claim a persecution complex "
- all I did was point out that you were simply name calling... you've been childishly attempting to avoid that ever since.
" ad hominem lies "
- What are they, ad hominem attacks or lies? I've challenged you on the lies and you failed there too.
So far all I've demonstrated is that you won't admit the truth about your own behaviour.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 look you lie , i finally got you to admit that but as to your crap about 'truth' you don't even know what it is so to attempt to talk about 'admitting the truth' shows how childish you really are- next time do your homework before you attempt to debate it - i had hoped for better to to busy now we have to protest the president's visit- you can return to your fantasy world 'where everyone sings beatles songs and buys shares in EMI'
philosophyteacher 1 year ago
@philosophyteacher " look you lie , i finally got you to admit that "
- You're really bad at this.
I've asked you to show me where I've lied.. even once... nothing. Just childish " got you to admit it "
I've pointed out your name calling... you made a fool of yourself trying to wiggle away.
Why would anyone bother to debate with you when you can't even get off the ground?
Kinda makes you wonder about the rest of your arguments.
Roper122 1 year ago
I'll be honest, ontology is confusing and hard to follow. I typically don't like these arguments because they seem too grounded in assumption. But great video, it was an interesting argument that I have not before heard.
turquoiseguy 1 year ago
Gasking's (whom Dawkins took this argument from) argument against the ontological argument actually proves God's existence, geniuses: watch?v=msiZDJwtZ6E.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins embarrasses himself when it comes to the ontological argument: watch?v=msiZDJwtZ6E
drcraigvideos 1 year ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@drcraigvideos " Richard Dawkins embarrasses himself when it comes to the ontological argument "
No.. in fact the ontological argument is embarrassing to begin with...
Craig's use of it is weaker still...
Roper122 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos " Richard Dawkins embarrasses himself when it comes to the ontological argument: watch?v=msiZDJwtZ6E "
No, he doesn't.
The argument is very easily defeated.
Interesting that you feel the need to block people from commenting on your videos... but are happy to comment yourself and direct others to them.
So yes.. if you want to watch an argument where anyone who points out it's failings is blocked.
Please do go to that link.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Well, I only block people who aren't interested in a dialog but a monologue. If you had any brain capacity at all you ought to know there are plenty of trolls in the youtube world. But seeing how incredibly shallow you are I'm not surprised you actually think Dawkins did well in refuting the ontological argument. That's sad.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos " I only block people who aren't interested in a dialog but a monologue "
Seems odd... quite a few of your videos don't allow comments at all.
Yes there are trolls, but they usually make fools of themselves and help your arguments.
You seem to be simply insulting me.. obviously I'm the one not willing to discuss...
Hmmmmm
As for Dawkins.. it is the Ontological argument that is embarrassing... Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant seemed to think so... Dawkins is in good company.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Well, if you saw the comments on some of the previous videos, you'd probably disallow comments to. There was an atheist who thought that posting links to pornographic websites had everything to do with the discussion. If you think that's appropriate then suit yourself. On the other hand, I think the rational thing to do is to disallow that trash.
Aquinas and Kant are geniuses but the problem is they actually know the ontological argument. Dawkins doesn't. It's obvious, he doesn't.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos " There was an atheist who thought that posting links to pornographic websites had everything to do with the discussion "
Of course.. but equally I can point to Theists who spew the most offensive homophobic bile and use the worst language possible.
They only embarrass themselves, and the videos in question continue to allow comments.
As for Aquinas and Kant... they understood that the argument was absolute nonsense, and so does Dawkins.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Hitler was a theist, so you kind of win that argument, don't worry.
RockBanned 1 year ago
you cannot conceive of something that exists while not existing. There is a reason why this argument is so unpopular in the atheist community in comparison to the other arguments.
chriswnorris7 1 year ago
premise 1 has totally fallen in on itself, utter rubbish. The creation of the world is not the most marvelous thing imaginable therefore stops in its track right there. However, with the "un-dawked" ontological argument, the premise 1 only works if you believe in god. Both arguments fail to "prove" god's existence, but none the less... are not meaningless. If you think about it God by definition is beyond human conception, so how should we ever come to prove/disprove such a being? well, we cant.
jackcallumscott 2 years ago
[...cont]
5. Therefore, That the universe was created by a non-existent being is the most crazy idea imaginable.
billy2bob 2 years ago
1. A crazy idea can be assessed by the degree in which it suppresses logic.
2. The more fundamental a principle of logic is suppressed, the crazier the idea is.
3. The most fundamental principle of logic imaginable that can be suppressed is the law of non-contradiction.
4. Any argument which requires a Being (Existence) to "be" non-existent (Nonexistent) involves suppressing the most fundamental principle of logic imaginable.
[cont...]
billy2bob 2 years ago
A God "handicapped" by non-existence would be a lesser god than one with existence.
Besides, I believe arguments involving non-existence are self-defeating, since for the argument to work, it would require non-existence to exist, which is an impossibility.
billy2bob 2 years ago
I can't even agree with the premise.
"1: The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable."
It's not. So there you go....
billy2bob 2 years ago 8
Ok, let me start over...
Ergo 4 in this video states that "The most formidable handicap for creator is non-existence."
We all once did not exist, but now we exist. If we are the product of our own existence, then it is a marvelous achievement because we overcame our inexistence. This brings the argument to Ergo 5, "therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being namely one who created everything while NOT existing."
atheismexposed 2 years ago
Thanks.
If you're saying the argument in question presented in the video is illogical then, yes, I agree with you.
Ergo 5 is a tautology though, is it not?.. "If we suppose god exists, then we suppose god exists?"
SexyMelon 2 years ago
"The most formidable handicap of a creator would be non-existence."
FALSE. That's not a handicap at all because it negates 'creator-hood'. Creators don't exist if they don't exist, and to claim so flies in the face of analytic philosophy. One can stop listening to this sophmoric effort at point four.
barifkin31 2 years ago
Logical contradictions are illustrations of falsehood of the argument, and here this contradiction comes in in part of the argument *for* God, not *against* him.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Ergo 4, how can "creating" existence while being handicapped by non-existing be? which is beyond reasonable. One cannot create what governs one's existence.
Ergo 5, again, how can one create what governs one's existence. It's not logical. And one did not exist before to achieve one's inexistence.
Revised:
Ergo 4, It is greater to never be imposed by any handicap and create, than to achieve the same despite being posed by the challenge of non-existence. Therefore, a logical God exists.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
Which shows Anselm's original argument to be illogical, as what's presented in the video is nothing more than an extrapolation of it. Indeed, it is illogical.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
This was very poorly reasoned. This argument requires more than that to debunk it. The conclusion is against the whole point of the argument.
Sydpart2 2 years ago
Ergo "8" - God both exists and does not exist.
mcsaurus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
click on my name for the u r l to see why atheism will never be tolerated...
drmabus7 2 years ago
Thanks Dawkins & Anselm - it explains a lot.
So, the conclusion I should draw is that there is no significant contradiction between a universe created by an all-powerful deity and an almost non-existent one? Very interesting indeed.
Hrimpurstala 2 years ago
As we can know that only existence can give existence. So the premise should be revised to "It is greater to not be posed by the challenge of non-existence and achieve creating the universe, than to achieve the same with such disadvantage of non-existence." Therefore, if only existence can give existence, as non-existence does not exist, therefore, God exists.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
What if the universe existed forever?
123Atheist 2 years ago
That is not greater at all. What you're saying is it's more challenge to not be challenged than be challenged, which violates rule of non-contradiction.
And, of course, the latter part is plain circular logic, presuming god exists before arguing if he does.
(Of course, so does the argument and presented extrapolation in the video).
SexyMelon 2 years ago
@Melon
sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point, but this is an indirect proof, not a circular argument.
mindgrapes 2 years ago
"What you're saying is it's more challenge to not be challenged than be challenged, which violates rule of non-contradiction."
That's circular logic, which I never said. To be challenged is the negation of not be challenged, yet undergirds the latter part of my argument. The law of non-contradiction is violated by imposing challenge on a creator. Urgo 7 "God does not exist" is indeed circular logic, or affirming the consequence.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
What the? Are you sober right now?..
In order: it's a contradiction, you said it, yes what you said was contradicting, what the fuck gives you the idea, what the FUCK gives you the idea?..
Not one thing you've said here makes any sense. Are you sure you remember what the discussion was even about?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
I feel I should apologise if this was deliberately offensive. But, seriously, what the fuck?
SexyMelon 2 years ago
You said that I said "it's more challenge to not be challenged than be challenged" which is false. That is circular logic, and is not what I'm arguing. Then you say that I presume God exist, then use circular logic to conclude that. But I am showing that this video, in presuming in Ergo 7, that "God does not exist" is circular instead, which commits the fallacy of affirming the consequence. To be challenged is the negation of not be challenged, which undergirds my presumption that God exists.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
It's a contradiction, and has nothing to do with circular logic (circular logic is presuming the conclusion in any part of the argument). And that is *exactly* what you said in "Ergo 4", just a few posts down.
And yes, you do presuppose that God (not just any god either) exists before starting your argument. Doing this before arguing whether he does IS circular.
"God does not exist" is a claim, it's not even a logical construct. I have to conclude you have no idea what circular logic is...
SexyMelon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"It's a contradiction, and has nothing to do with circular logic (circular logic is presuming the conclusion in any part of the argument). And that is *exactly* what you said in "Ergo 4", just a few posts down."
I presented Ergo 4 as being illogical, ..."The most formidable handicap for creator is non-existence" How can one create one's own existence? I'm not presupposing anything here.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
I seriously have no idea what you're trying to say here.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
""God does not exist" is a claim, it's not even a logical construct. I have to conclude you have no idea what circular logic is..."
"God does not exist" is also a presupposition, which is not grounded properly in this argument, which I've showed in my first post. When "handicap" is imposed onto "creator" that is circular. You affirm the consequence. It's like saying "if it rains, it gets wet, it's wet, therefore it's raining." Yes, I am well aware of circular logic.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
It can be either. I never presupposed it nor even mentioned it, and I have no idea why you even brought it up...
You're saying it's circular logic, but you're not doing much to explain where that is. I have no idea where you're seeing that, anyway.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Ahem. There you are: "presumption that god exists".
In fact, not "just" god, but a god that doesn't want to be challenged, which also what you're trying to argue for...
Seriously?..
SexyMelon 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"In fact, not "just" god, but a god that doesn't want to be challenged, which also what you're trying to argue for..."
If everything, and everyone, and every entity is challenged, or handicapped with non-existence, then nothing would exist. Challenge is a handicap imposed by its negation "not challenge" as existence is absolute, as non-existence does not exist. This logic undergirds my "presupposition" that God exists.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
You're not making even grammatical sense here. Could you re-phrase?
Nice to see you marked as spam by the way... Confirms my theory. I bet it's due to you quoting me, when I try to do that myself YouTube just blocks my post.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Which part do you not understand? What theory are you talking about? You have yet to show me how I am using circular logic to make my conclusion.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
I don't know?
I appreciate random debates as much as the next guy, but I don't keep this stuff in my head for half a week.
Seriously, I don't know what you're trying to say.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Oh, I see, "Ergo 4"...
Well, in it you say to the effect of "But this is illogical, therefore it can't apply" which would be fine and dandy if you didn't then use this point in the context of what you just said is illogical therefore is logical.
It's an implied premise that's the culprit, basically. What you're basically saying is: "This would make god non-existent, but since god exists, it clearly it isn't so."
It's very confusing. Which is why I asked you to re-phrase.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Let me ask you this...
Does it logically follow, that one can create one's own existence. Can one create the laws that governs one's existence?
And can we overcome our non-existence?
The logical answer to these are "NO."
We cannot create the laws that governs our existence, rather our existence is contingent upon...say...our parents, and so on and so on.
And we did not exist before to try and overcome our non-existence.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
I agree.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
Since "existence" is absolute, meaning "it just is," because non-existence does not exist, and we were once handicapped with non-existence, there has to be existence before us to bring upon our existence. This logic holds to the presupposition that God exists.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't see how any part of it presupposes god.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
We have to presuppose either God is the self-exiting one, or the universe is itself self-existing. But the universe is not infintely old because it has been proven scientifically and philosophically that it began a "finite" time ago. Thank you SexyMelon, I enjoyed talking to you.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
"Self-existing" doesn't make much sense as a word.
Also, no: we know *our* universe - as it exists now, that is - had a start some 14 bil years ago, but we don't know what came before it (albeit the term is inapplicable because time did not exist prior to primary expansion). No matter which point we assume as start of anything, it doesn't logically follow that some *being*, less of all a specific being, had to be the cause, that it still exists, etc.
My pleasure.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
we don't know that the universe is not infinite. all we know is that the universe in its current form started "x" amount of years ago. stephen hawking used to talk about this and i tend to agree with him. for all we know there was some sort of universe before the bug bang and the big band essentially wiped the slate clean, destroying any evidence of a previus universe. therefore we start from scratch
hitch4645 2 years ago
Right. I believe the very concept of absolute existence proves Existence exists. One that pre-exists our existence and is responsible for our existence.
billy2bob 2 years ago
Seriously, please refrain from offensive language for it is unnecessary in debates. Thank you.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
"Offensive" language is a method of verbally expressing frustration.
Your posts up to this point are beyond frustrating.
SexyMelon 2 years ago
If non-existence was posed to the less great existence, then less great existence, namely the universe, would not exist. The premise that "greater is to achieve existence posed by the challenge of non-existence" is false as non-existence does not exist. ONly existence can give existence. And if less great existence exists, then it's necessary precondition would have to be great existence as presented in Anselm's Ontological argument in premise 2, it is greater to exist than not to exist.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
'The God Delusion' was the worst book ever written on natural atheology. What is wrong with this parody of the ontological argument is that it assumes there is (possibly) such a thing as a being which has no being. This is in blatant violation of the law of non-contradiction. Since one of the premises is manifestly faulse, the argument as a whole is unsound. It is important to note that the actual ontological argument (for God's existence) does not commit this beginner-level fallacy.
evangelical1 2 years ago
Excellent. This is why the Ontological Argument = mental masturbation. It can be used to prove any thing at all, no matter how ridiculous. My advice to Christians who play with the OA is put your brain back in your pants before you go blind.
Kailoa36 2 years ago
Jesus said: I am the way and the truth and the life
markch9v23 2 years ago
i said "no"
crappybass19 2 years ago
We're really doing this.
This is as asinine as that 'Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot life it' argument.
The answer is 'No'
Can God create a round square? No.
You can't use definitions to argue like this. Its a word game; not philosophy.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago 7
Exactly. And if it were the case that God could do something contradictory such as creating something while not existing, then he could will himself back into existence anyway (or lift the rock that he cannot lift). If you buy the premise that God can do something contradictory, then you buy it in all cases. One contradictory action is as good as another. In the end, this argument doesn't show us anything, however it certainly is a humorous parody of the various ontological arguments.
FuriousLiver 2 years ago
Actually I'm not certain Dawkins believes this is a parody. It's enough for him to say this and then move on.
That's not good reasoning, good science or anything, but a lot of people buy into this obfuscation :/
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
Thats...pretty depressing. ):
FuriousLiver 2 years ago
I know :/
Ironically what atheists really need perhaps in this day and age to get to the truth (no matter what that truth may be) is doubt. Doubt that they have come up with the magic key to wish away the questions.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
Have you actually read "The God Delusion"? I would think not from your comment here...
BryanAJParry 2 years ago
Comment removed
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
Yeah, thanks for the biting sarcasm. You said, "I'm not certain Dawkins believes this is a parody." This is a statement that I find it difficult to make from one who has actually read the book. Dawkins' opinion of this statement is clear. Hence my comment.
BryanAJParry 2 years ago
Comment removed
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
For what it's worth, I personally am not and never would slam you or anyone else for questioning the logic or reasoning of anybody. :)
BryanAJParry 2 years ago
Let me give you ONE **small** passage from immediately after the "proof":
"Needless to say, Gasking didn't really prove that God does not exist. [...] Gasking was being funny on purpose"
BryanAJParry 2 years ago
Okay. So long as it satire, I guess it is kind of funny.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
Absolutely it's meant as a satire.
BryanAJParry 2 years ago
Apologies for the sneering comments before.
It doesn't excuse me, but I've run into quite a few unpleasant people who follow this line of thought as gospel, and use it as an excuse to denigrate me and others.
Figures the one time I get up the gumption to lash out, its a reasonable person the other end.
Apologies, and good will.
bloodrunsclear 2 years ago
Where knowledge ends Religion begins.. That quote single handidly sums up religion. I don't see how any educated people can believe in God or a supreme being.
Speaking as a raised Roman Catholic I see/saw religion for what it really is, a ploy to part believers from their cash. I'm a fully grown man, I no longer believe in anything "fantasy" like everyone else. We grew up to stop believing in Santa Clause.. see the link?
ComradeFennell 2 years ago
Wow, congratulations... you deserve a freakin' medal... woop de doo. :|
SpottedTiger89 2 years ago
Glad i dont have to listen to him explaining anything else
TigerAnzac 2 years ago
Listen to who?
BryanAJParry 2 years ago
This argument fails because non-existence isn't a property of being. i.e. there is no possible world in which a non-existant God created the Universe.
GiloRocks 2 years ago
But I have heard soem theologians claim that God technically doesn't need to "exist".
I'm no theology expert, but the more I look into it, the more it seems like pure sophistry to me.
BryanAJParry 2 years ago
Imaginefree69 3 years ago