The Ontological Argument (Question Begging?)

A common objection to the ontological argument is that it begs the question. However, this video explains that the argument is valid and doesn't beg the question. Once we understand what it means to beg the question we can easily see the ontological argument doesn't commit this fallacy.

Link mentioned in video:
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morou...

The Ontological Argument (The Introduction):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqH...

Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixqsZP...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JRsHI...

Peter S. Williams refutes more objections:
http://media.damaris.org/podcastitems...

Dr. William Lane Craig on the Ontological argument begging the question:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-t...

*If you are caught excessively commenting, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn0Hq-...

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

• Category

  Education

[TK Stoddart]

Rather than possible/impossible, isn't the argument likely/unlikely? Because the existence of a god is POSSIBLE, but the existence of any of the gods I have been presented with with the qualities defined by any religion is extraordinarily UNLIKELY, given the qualities assigned to the god and the history of gods and their emergence and evolution throughout time.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

Logically, there can only be one God. See my video, "Answering Objections to the Ontological Argument (part 1)". No one is saying this God or that God with just the ontological argument, just the fact that a God must exist.

[TK Stoddart]

That is not a fact. The argument you make is sophistry. It's interesting, but the fact of the matter is that, althougha god COULD exist, on the balance of probablities, one does not, based upon the evidence Based upon sophistry, one certainly could.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

No again, logically speaking there can only be one omnipotent being. I go over this in my other video. It is, in fact, an 'a priori' fact.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

LOL! No, see my video, "The Ontological Argument (The Introduction)". Understand the difference between contingency and necessity.

[SeekingAllTruth16]

"i could very well say if unicorns could exist, then unicorns exist" Uninformed moron.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

I've already seen that video and it is very easy to get the wrong idea from a one minute presentation of the ontological argument. If he actually tried to understand the OA, he should read "The Nature of Necessity".

[Samuel Carlsson]

please look at this video watch?v=GALtT5doyzI. Twice at least. And then try to work out the logic on paper and see if you can understand it better. If you still cannot understand, then please continue making videos.

[InspiringPhilosophy]

Did you notice I used PSW's version, which pretty much does that? The main point of the argument is to properly demonstrate how God is logically defined and why it makes sense that it is logically so that He either exists or is impossible. There is no middle ground.

[SteveVgod]

Not getting the point of this argument. If the whole argument can be summed up as: God is necessary

Therefore God exists.

then the argument shouldn't be presented in a long winded confusing way. We should just be using the argument:

God is necessary.

here is why we think he is X, Y, Z.