The Ultimate refutation of all Ontological Arguments!

This video-graphic work, gives a robust
presentation, and definitive refutation, of
all Ontological Arguments, whether
classical, or modal.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Anselm
• Ontological Arguments
• Migkilertwo
• Telemantros
• mental conceptions
• Atheism
• Theism
• Objectivism
• maximal greatness

[1Costello11]

Traveling faster than the speed of light is a physical impossibility, not a logical one.

Your claim that immaterial things cannot exist is absurd. When I say the word 'gravity,' what thoughts enters your mind, excluding the thoughts of the meaning of the word? Nothing? Does that prove then that gravity doesn't exist?.

The meaning of something is by definition equivalent to that thing. Hence, when thinking of the meaning of God, you are indeed thinking of God.

[Dhorpatan]

@1Costello11

The thought that enters my mind is a force puling down on an object in free fall. Your comparison is ridiculous anyway. It's like you saying we can't see air, so it's immaterial. We can FEEL the effects of air and gravity. Immaterial things don't exist. Get over it

[Birdieupon]

Interesting points, but this is not an "ultimate refutation" for these reasons:

1) Primary attribute of God is not "nothing" just because he is immaterial. According to most theists, God is a spirit or mind.

2) The apparent "contradictions" of God's properties have been refuted by the theory of Middle Knowledge.

3) To say "that which can't be conceived can't exist" is nonsense. Can you conceive of the universe expanding or its size?

4) Jesus is meant to be God, not just anthropropmorphic.

[Dhorpatan]

1) You cannot exist as a spirit. Spirit is an emotion or character trait. Emotions and character traits don't have primary attributes. Something cannot exist as just a mind. That's a fallacy of hypostatization.

2) The contradictions of God's properties have not been refuted by the theory of Middle Knowledge. To say so indicates you have no idea what you're yapping about.

3) I can conceive of the Universe expanding, and it's size.

4) Mohammad is supposed to be divine. So what?

[Feldmm1]

I am an atheist, but this is horrible. There are stronger ways to disprove the arguments, the meaning of words like omnicient and omnipotent now mean being able to do anything logically possible and knowing anything logically possible, and your arguments are based on premises that are easy to object to.

[Dhorpatan]

@Feldmm1

Your comment was horrible. It contained very little substance, and too much assertion.

And stating that you're Atheist, is a very cliche and tiresome bit of manipulation.

[philosophizer149]

It seems you wrongly define primary qualities as material composition. Primary qualities are simply qualities which an entity has that are independent of an observer. Omniscience and omnipotence could be considered primary qualities because they convey facts about God, that are independent of the effects they have of observers. A things taste, smell, feel, or preference would be secondary qualities of an entity.

[philosophizer149]

@Dhorpatan oh dude you need to learn theology Muhammed is said to be a prophet, not divine.

[Ataensic]

Space, time, dimensions, gravity, etc. are not 'things' as such but merely physical or conceptual phenomena.

A 'being' without material is not a real thing, it's an imagined creature. Gods are the original X-Men.

If you believe consciousness/mind/soul can exist without a specific physical arrangement, chop your head off and prove it.

[Ataensic]

In layman's terms: Throwing a bunch of impossible qualities together does not an existent make.

How to determine if something exists:

1. If it's there, observe it

2. Study it, measure it, name it, define it

[Necropedophile90]

"This statement is false"

Self-contradiction.

[JoakimfromAnka]

You say something non-material can not exist. What about dimensions? Space time and whatever else there might be. Just curious.

[jamesontheweb]

Interesting video, I enjoyed watching. Though I would urge you to look at the many possibilities such as the string theory and 4th dimensional concept. Im not saying you should watch and believe, but understand that the concept of reality and what we experience and have come to know in life are indescribable. It is not wise to sign yourself up for an idea without looking at the entirety of what your suggesting/arguing or the purpose of which you hope to obtain.

[1Costello11]

Definition of immaterial: Having no matter or substance. Air has substance, so that is a false analogy and thus irrelevant. Gravity, of course, has neither. When you think of 'a force puling down on an object in free fall,' you're thinking of the effects of gravity, not gravity itself. And when you say 'Immaterial things don't exist. Get over it,' this is nothing more than a bald assertion of that which you are trying (with a breath-taking amount of incompetence) to prove.