The Argument for Atheism from St. Anselm

[FCKEVRY1]

If it had no life, it's creator would have no purpose. If the creator had no purpose he would be imperfect and would cease to exist. So you see, The Creator, The Universe, and all other life, started simultaneously. If either ceases to exist, so do the the rest. God sustains The Universe. The Universe sustains life. Life sustains purpose. Or who the fuck knows? I'm going back to my hash pipe.

[FCKEVRY1]

Yes. Since non-existence would be the greatest handicap one can have, the God who doesn't exists AND created the Universe would have to be greater than the one who does exist. But was the Universe ever created? Nope. It is infinite.  It has always existed and will always exist. It just changes. It was there before the Big Bang but in a way irrelevant and immeasurable from the way it is today. But it has always been a living thing teaming with life. (continued above)

[JohananRaatz]

A Very Unusual Proof for the Existence of God: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8

Taking the burden of proof head on:

1.) The quantum wave-function of the universe is self-collapsing.

2.) Self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. (Penrose's Orch-OR)

Conclusion: The Wave-function of the Universe is a Mind!

[colossus999]

Ah, and the multitudes of people completely miss the joke.

[theowarner]

@colossus999

Many did.

[KingZing42]

While your argument is both deductive and in fact an argument it is not sound. There is absolutely nothing that says that being existant is better than being non existant. If God is that which nothing greater can be thought than your definition of God is not consistent with the definition of God at all.

[greenelf12]

This sounds more like an argument for deisim to me than atheisim or even pantheisim depending on your definition of "god".

[spockodile]

That was a highly amusing take on the ol' Anslem argument, theo. Good stuff.

[Wrath0fKhan]

Reminds me of "Gaskings proof", however, your version is simpler, hence more appealing... :))

[Poschmania]

Theo, I am trying my best to understand your conclusion 2, and feel that though it may be true, it is not entirely substantiated in this video. Would it not require a proposal that states that to create something from a weaker position (eg. non-existence) is greater than to create the same thing from a stronger position (eg. existence)?

I suppose that I should mention that I am unfamiliar with St. Anselm, so maybe I am missing something there.

Any help would be much appreciated.

[theowarner]

Yeah.

Well, let me see... what is non-existence a weaker position? Why is existence a stronger position?

That's for starters.

[Poschmania]

I suppose I should have asked my question without trying to answer it myself. This is one of my most common mistakes.

I would simply like to know how we know that "the God that created the universe and does not exist is greater than the God that created the universe and does exist."

Also, you say that God must be the greatest thing of which we can conceive, but can we really conceive of a God who does not exist?

[theowarner]

Not quite.

I am simply saying of two gods, both of which created the universe and only one of which exists, the one that doesn't exist (and created the universe) is the greater. After all... I don't think I could tie my shoes if I didn't exist... but, a non-existent God would have to be really great to create the universe... far greater than a God that happened to exist.

[jonyzion]

@Poschmania You are all breaking your heads on P2,

Ask yourselves, Whats the difference between P1 and P2

[longhornman99001]

WTF?!?!?!?

[wakkacraft]

'Greater' is indeed ambiguous. Can anyone tell me why Conclusion two is true? I don't get how a god that created the universe and does not exist is 'greater' than one that created the universe and does exist. Am I missing something simple, 'greater' and existence makes no sense to me. Am I missing something simple or am I just lost over-analyzing the joke?

[DayfallKat]

Because it is more difficult to create the universe and not exist. Any god that could create the universe AND not exist is surely greater than an existing god.

Our non-existing God is surely one to be feared.

[VeritasEtLibertas82]

Theo -- I hope this is a joke....

[theowarner]

Well... hope springs eternal.

[VeritasEtLibertas82]

If that's a "no, I'm actually serious about this argument" you really should re-think this one.

[theowarner]

I've rethought it. Thanks.

[VeritasEtLibertas82]

cool

[lazyconquistador]

The monk Guanilo slapped down Anselm with his "lost island" response. It is still probably my favorite philosophic reply to this day.

[10secstomeltdown]

Made me laugh. Brilliant!

[apolloxias]

As others have noted, this argument fails for the same reasons the ontological argument it parodies does: existence is not a property, "greater than" is ambiguous, etc., blah blah blah ad nauseam. An amusing satire, but trite.

[transferosome]

This is an argument which only really works as a refutation of the ontological argument for the existence of god.

It commits the same mistake - that of creating something which exists from a simple definition.

So it simply assumes that this god exists because there is a definition for it. Unfortunately you cannot define something into existence.

For this reason it doesn't prove the non-existence of god.

[Kahouneko]

WHAT.

[Jermbot15]

lol, hilarious!

[4jonah]

To those who say the argument doesnt make sense, you are right and wrong. It is logically flawed, but within that flawed framework, it is sound. To put it in another way:

God either exists or He doesnt and either God created the universe or He didnt. So so if God exists and didnt create the universe, He is greater than the God who....

no wait. This doesnt make any sense. I is lost.

[majinrevan666]

The (most obvious) flaw lies in P2." Given C1, either it is the case that the God that created the universe exists or it is not the case that the God that created the universe exists."

It cannot be the case that the god who created the universe doesn't exist, as that would be a logical contradiction. (or just contradict the attribute of being eternal, depending on how "exists" is meant to be taken.)

[chickenmanstan]

I don't understand C2. Are you just equating existence with something less than great?

[majinrevan666]

The argument is basically nonsense as it is a logical impossibility for a nonexistent entity to create anything,

and calling a nonexistent conceivable being "greater" than anything is absurd to the very core.

This is much, much worse than Anslm's argument, since his seems superficially compelling.

Perhaps you should try reversing Plantiga's ontological argument?

That would be much more effective.

[theDracoIX]

These RTA videos are even worse than I had suspected... and, that's saying quite a lot.

Keep putting out videos like this Theo, and I'm sure you'll garner a nice reputation as a troll.

What a waste of a subscription. Ba bye.

[chickenmanstan]

@theDracoIX Could you please explain how theo is being a troll? He isn't even saying that he believes or doesn't believe in this argument for atheism. He is merely showing another person's argument, and allowing people to discuss it.

[SubRandomv6]

Why is it that the god that does not exist and created the universe is greater than the god that does and created the universe?

[Argonnosi]

Because God is defined as that which no greater can be conceived, but a God that created the universe is greater than a God that did not create the universe. Therefore the definition for God, given by St. Anselm, because self-contradictory and is no longer capable of existing.

[AuntieDiluvian]

I prefer St Ansell.  He has the power to prevent AIDS and unwanted pregnancy if used correctly.

[Vidar33]

I thought that was St Condom.

[AuntieDiluvian]

Ansell makes condoms in Australia - I thought it was a world-wide supplier: maybe not.

[Cheegro]

Yeah the joke threw me off quite a bit as well because I've never heard of a St Ansell so the fuse kinda went off. lol.

Condom was the missing piece I gather and well, the Lol's ensued!

Well that's how it went down In my case.

Nah, I figure all condom manufacturing and distribution is still tied just short of globally. Still got a ways till we get one specific company/brand of condom laying used on the floor of almost every ''Fun'' room on the planet. A nation or two but meh later.

Cheers!

[ragnarok297]

Awesome vid!!

And Anselm's argument also fails in a couple other ways regardless of the subjectivity of greatness. When proving its existence, it never utilizes its greatness in intelligence, the one aspect that is necessary among all theists to consider something god.

So the argument can be used to prove an infinite amount of things existing of which are defined as having greatness in all aspects necessary to use the argument, among others, but lacking the aspect of greatness in intelligence.

[rjswolfman]

awesome

[boorens18]

I dont think people got the point of this vid..... its suppose to help theists realize their version of the ontological argument is flawed in that it assumes that the "greater" used in the definitions, is completely subjective.

Thus when theists use the ontological argument they will now realize they are wrong. Its not meant to function as an actual disproof. Thats simply the veil to get theists to watch it.

[boorens18]

@boorens18 whoops typo meant to say;

There definition assume "existance" is greater than non-existance ( WHICH is completely subjective) Thus their "proof" works both ways.

[evangelical1]

It is logically impossible that a non-existent being perform some act, yet your argument assumes this and so is invalid.

[NichtDieseTone]

Well done! You succeeded in winning the mission!

Thus the logic system used to promote the "argument" for god via his definition and the reasoning above of him being the creator by definition, is flawed.

The original reasoning for promoting him in this way is flawed. That's why the conclusions are ludicrus when not cherry-picked to imply his existance and creation.

[roentgen571]

There's a variation on this argument in the wikipedia entry on the ontological argument. Basically, it's that the creation of the universe is the most impressive accomplishment imaginable.  The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the accomplishment. The most formidable handicap imaginable is not existing. Therefore, a being that created the universe while not existing is greater than one that did so while existing. :-)

[SonofTzeentch]

Nice comedy. Obviously, doesn't work for the same reason Anselm has failed.

Also, I think the god that created the universe without existing and then came into existence would be even greater and thus fit D1.

Just noticed, however, that you are missing A.'s step that makes god existent. A. said that an existent god is greater than one that doesn't, hence it existed - such a step is missing in your argument, so it is not apparent how the non-existent god pops up here all of a sudden; (cont...)

[SonofTzeentch]

...since 'non-existent god' here is an entity that exists (by it being included in the creation of the universe), it would seem to be missing a justification for existing (in its nonexistence). Which is an odd quirk.

Like in A's original argument though, this argument defines god as something that is conceived anyway, so any god in the conclusion is automatically merely conceptual, as that was part of the definition in the first place.

But as this is meant for fun...I'll drop my complaints :p

[heloizyjhenifer]

By virtue of the garbage in garbage out argument, considering god is garbage, god cannot be used in arguments.

[KalimaShaktide]

[God that created the universe and does not exist] is greater than [God that created the universe and does exist]

Again, the [God that created the universe and does not exist] part is what is wrong here. You only need to reverse the sentence:

God does not exist and created the universe. Impossible cause an effect. God could not have created the universe if he didn t exist so the question is either :

God exist and created the universe

God doesn t exist and didn t create the universe

[Dogstolmychi]

That's funny.

[KalimaShaktide]

fallacy

created the universe but does not exist is not a valid concept. God can not create the universe if he doesn t exist hence he can not get into D2's equation.

I know this is philosophical trickery but you can not make an argumentation where a result comes from a non existing thing...ie can X create Y if X does not exist and then is Y something like D. Well the argumentation stops there. Y does not exist in the first place so it can t be like D and can t be used in an argumentation.

[DistinctiveBlend]

haha thanks for that...made me lol.

[bu1ckgnx]

What's funny about this is that any theist who denies this argument on the grounds that god's existence can't be confirmed or denied based on syntactical definitions has also snuffed all the theistic arguments FOR god's existence based on similar definition play. They are then forced to only use hard evidence, and the case for god finds slim pickings in this department.

[ObsidianTeen]

I really don't get it. Can someone elaborate?

[thunderpants10]

A god who can create the universe is powerful.

But a god who can pull off the same stunt while not existing is even more powerful.

[Theologica37]

Does that not strike you immediately as a non-sequitur?

[thunderpants10]

Actually, I don't think the argument really makes any sense. However, I think the argument was meant to be an atheist version of the ontological argument, and as we all know, the ontological argument makes no sense. So in that sense, it hit the target pretty square on. imho

[Afriboy2007]

Ah, the ontological argument....

[KithyKeisari]

Hahaha, thanks theo. That made my day.

[zapo147]

Right out of the God Delusion, cheers.

[Anonymesse]

Mind = Blown

[zapo147]

LOL

[Paxmax]

Hahahahaha! this is why evidence always matter to people in reality, cuz once you are off the map all kind of funny things can seemingly happen.

[TheGreatSimonski]

Theo, I think you've missed the explanation for why the nonexistant god is greater, the argument is unconvincing for anyone unfamiliar with Dawkins, who discusses this in terms of handicap.

[redstorm008]

x=y therefore y=x is only logical due to the fact that it is already an axiom that x and y have the same values as thier counterpart x and y... If two people looked at a flock of sheep, and one happens to remark that they are shorn. Then another person decides to put extreme logical restraints upon the situation by replying that the only thing to be sure about was that they were shorn on the side that faced the crowd. All i have to ask is, who is putting logic to better use?

[robotwookie]

@redstorm008 Very interesting.

[redstorm008]

I am beginning to realize that though given in a serious light, these are not arguements at all for atheism, only a sort of tribute to them... The easiest defence to any of these arguements is that the initial cause, or God in this case exists outside of the realm of pure logic... And the only thing that makes my argument palatable is the fact that when looked at honestly, there is no conclusion to any thing that is arrived at purely from the application of logic...

[noelplum99]

I don't favourite very many videos but this one I have. I have a very deep loathing for these kinds of philosophical proofs and this is one of the most enjoyable examples of how you can 'prove' just about anything about as (un)convincingly as anything else.

Add tyo that the second layer of irony of a theist presenting the argument against God taking his cue from another theist who famously presented a related argument FOR God.

Things like this make existence worthwhile.

[blackwolf1200]

Not tricky at all. The first time I read this (counter-)argument a few years ago, I immediately got it. No formal logic training needed.

[smhussain62]

I'm sure you've heard this before but:

"It is the final proof of God's greatness that he need not exist in order to save us."

-- The Reverend Mackerel, The Mackerel Plaza (1959)

[ToddAllenGates]

I agree with Anselm that if God exists then He definitely exists.

[AndrewTheEternal]

You are assigning existence a value that...

I wish it didn't take me this long to realize the series were parodies of religious arguments.

[theowarner]

I wish I had realized that, too. In fact, I don't I have yet.

[AndrewTheEternal]

My mistake. I read GuineaPigDan's comment a few down and jumped to conclusions.

Pleasure watching, as always.

[defcore108]

hahahaha

Ontological mindfuck. I love it. :-)

[ScienceRob]

I've read the statements and the problem I keep coming to is that fact that a non-entity cannot create an entity so I am finding it difficult to rationalize C1 with C2 as a god creating the universe while not existing.

More to the point I think that a for D1 to hold true you must also hold true that god exists. How can you give a non-entity the property of greatness?

[blackwolf1200]

But surely a non-entity that CAN create an entity is superior to one that can't? ;)

[GuineaPigDan]

This is a nice parody of Anselm's ontological argument. I've read a translation of his Proslogion (the book where this argument appears) and it's difficult to understand in places. His ontological argument is one of the easier parts to follow, though. To me, the ontological argument and its variations are just lazy ways to prove God's existence via word games without providing actual evidence. And as always, replacing "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" shows how silly this argument really is.

[AHughman08]

At long last. You've done it. There's no arguing with that no matter what you presume greater to be.

There is no god. Unless it's greater to be a toaster oven and not exist and have created the universe. In which case God doesn't exist and is a toaster oven.

He might also swim very quickly. Because how great is a non-existent omni-creative speed swimming kitchen appliance?

Pretty great if you ask me.

[theowarner]

Well put.

[LanceDirk]

So the point of this is that being able to create the universe while not existing is much more difficult and inconceivable than creating it while existing, so any god that does not exist but also created the universe is much more powerful and greater than one that has to exist to create something?

[blackwolf1200]

Exactly.

[aManApathetic]

Damn right; it's easy to create something that then exists when you also exist. But try doing it while you don't exist.

Better yet, try creating something that doesn't exist and continues to not exist even after you created it, while you exist or not.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Sorry for not getting to this until now Theo, but aren't they just going to say it is logically impossible for something that doesn't exist to create something and that if it ceases to exist it wasn't all powerful or something along those lines?

[TheNakedAtheist]

-but aren't they just going to say it is logically impossible for something that doesn't exist to create something

A God that can defy logic is greater than one who can't. :p

[HonestDiscussioner]

But if logic can be defied and isn't a constant then we can't really apply logic to this god.

[AHughman08]

You can't confine the non-existent god with logic.

Limitless. Another quality of greatness. You're just helping his argument HD.

[HonestDiscussioner]

But limitless isn't supposed to apply to "nothing". The only reason being limitless is considered "greater" is because it implies that it stretches on eternally, that it IS something. It is not greater to not have a limit if you don't have anything that a limit could possibly apply to.

[AHughman08]

So help me non-existent god, I will reason you out of existence if you keep on honestly trying to discuss this.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Go ahead and try it! lol

[AHughman08]

D1 - 'You' refers to the person in a discussion toward which the spoken has directed his/her comments.

D2 - A 'person' is a human being regarded as an individual

P1 - Human beings must be physical and organic

P2 - I am directing my comments toward a server, to which persons can access.

P3 - A server is not organic and so is not a person

P4 - 'you' must be a person in order to exist

P5 - 'you' is not a person

Therefore you do not exist

[HonestDiscussioner]

P2 contradicts D1. P2 says you are directing your comments to a server while D1 says you are directing the contents to a person.

[nylonhead116]

I know what P1 and P2 stand for, but what does D1 stand for?

[twholland1]

@nylonhead116

definition 1

[HonestDiscussioner]

Definition 1.

[AHughman08]

@HD

HEY! Stop it!

P1 Things must exist in order to argue with me

P2 You do not exist

Therefore Stop IT!

[HonestDiscussioner]

P1 Interacting with a non-existent thing requires a lack of sanity.

P2 You are interacting with something that doesn't exist.

C1. You are crazy!

P3. Crazy people logic can't be trusted.

C2. I exist! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

[goodbryan]

True omnipotence! Creating everything while not existing. Atheists believe in the most powerful god of all.

It just shows the essential flaw of theism: once you leave behind arguments based on reason it can lead you anywhere you want it to lead you.

[ContinuumXT]

The fail is with defining god.

It's always is and always will be.

All those wasted efforts on trying to point God to a limited idea created by words. And all those people who follow a particular religion (or a particular god concept) are just as equally wrong.

It is obvious from the fact that the whole religion project is divided. The conclusion to be drawn is: nobody knows and everybody that says so, is a liar with an agenda (mostly a bloated sense of self importance).

[rozeboosje]

ROFL

Nice. Silly, but nice.

[theowarner]

Thanks, Roze!

[Theophage]

Despite the fact that I know that the Ontological Argument (upon which this is based) is bollocks and wordplay, and thus this argument is as well, I am digging the way you turned it around on them.

Kudos to you, sir!

[theowarner]

Thank you, sir.

[adrenacrumb]

yep, don't really get why the god that doesn't exist would be greater.

[theowarner]

Because even he doesn't exist, he created the universe. That's quite a magic trick when you think about it.

[adrenacrumb]

Yes it is quite a trick and an idea forged in the brains of bronze age men who used this mythology to give their nefarious laws and agendas credibility and is absolutely ridiculous that people still believe in that sort of magic but I don't think this argument works. :/ Very interesting premise though.

[theowarner]

Do you mean you disagree with the logic? Or the conclusion? Or what?

[adrenacrumb]

I don't understand what would make something that doesn't exist greater than something that does.

[sammcalpine]

I don't understand what would make something that does exist greater than something that doesn't as a general statement.

[cowboycoco]

Think about it.

You exist. You pour yourself a drink.

Small task, easy to do.

Now, suppose you don't exist.

Pouring that drink is quite a difficult task now, no?

So the God that creates while not existing has performed a greater feat than the one who does exist.

[theowarner]

Well put, Mr. Cowboy. (Did that sound gay?)

[cowboycoco]

lol, I think I need a new youtube name. The name by itself leaves me with that question.

[damasta00138]

A god which created the universe without existing complements the god of the neo-Christian apologists who say it exists outside of time, space, and logic.

[adrenacrumb]

@cowboy you are telling me difficulty is a value of greatness?

[cowboycoco]

In point of actual fact, no. I am telling you that is the point of the argument. However, the point you raise is the reason why the original argument in favor of god fails as well. It assigns an arbitrary value to a property and then presents that as evidence of god. This argument is just a showcasing of how an arbitrary assignment of value can be twisted against the argument itself. I don't think theowarner is putting a lot of stock into this argument, and neither do I.

[adrenacrumb]

haha yes i understand, i didn't expect you to respond. :p

subjective terminology and logical unknowns under the rouse of proof.

[GWR3440]

Sleight of language.

Every "proof" of God tries to generate information where there isn't any, usually by fallacies or lingustic trickery.

Of course if they actually had any information this would be direct evidence and they wouldn't need to try and argue it into existence.

[wasneeplus]

This argument is falacious. It was only ment as a rebutal to that monk what's-his-name. That arguments contained the defenition that God was the greater then anything we could conceive. This being the case because something that does exist is always greater then the same thing that someone just made up. God by defenition had to exist he thought. Once you get rid of this defenition, this argument falls apart.

But I do like these video's, keep it up!

[Crowbarazar]

Whoa....

[Epydemic2020]

"because the God that created the universe and does not exist is greater than the God that created the universe and does exist, God does not exist."

I reject this idea outright. How exactly does one determine that a being which does not exist and creates is better than the alternative?

I don't think "greatness" is subjectively determined here. Someone who considers cruelty a great property would really throw a wrench in that idea.

Do you buy these arguments or are you just throwing out ideas?

[sammcalpine]

I think he is demonstrating the subjective nature of "greatness" and therefore that Anselms argument can be used to argue literally ANYTHING.

[TheNakedAtheist]

-Do you buy these arguments or are you just throwing out ideas?

It makes as much sense as the original.

[FatGermanBastard]

I agree... The argument is just as bad as the original. I get the impression that "Rational Tuesday Afternoon" is basically making fun of Christian arguments by creating arguments that are just as bad as the Christian arguments.

[apolloxias]

This times a thousand.

[theowarner]

I don't know... Some where in between, I think.

[sammcalpine]

Aw man!  Comment lag.

Oh yeah and FIRST! SECOND! & THIRD!

[sammcalpine]

Aw man! Comments are broken.  Trying again...

I love it!

[sammcalpine]

I love it!