Watch “Conceptions of God: The Ontological Argument” on YouTube

Posted from WordPress for Android


Author: mkamoski1


2 thoughts on “Watch “Conceptions of God: The Ontological Argument” on YouTube”

  1. Hi, I have a blog also called “Conceptions of God”, which is not necessarily taking on the accuracy and historical reality of biblical events, but more of a survey of the different ways people use the term, “god”. If you are interested it is here:

    I like what you have to say about Anshelm. It shows how humans can use logic to twist themselves into believing something because of a valid, but unsound argument.

    1. Regarding this…

      >>> I like what you have to say about Anshelm. It shows how humans can use logic to twist themselves into believing something because of a valid, but unsound argument.

      …please see the modern version of the argument, now called…

      The Modal Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God

      …such as this nice YouTube video on it here…

      …and one will find that it is not a “twist” but rather pure logic.

      Kurt Godel, the famous mathematician, stated it quite technically, such as here…'s_ontological_proof

      …so that should be some good reading for anyone interested, summarized very briefly as follows…

      By the rules of modal logic we have…

      1. Propositions that are logically possible.

      2. Propositions that are logically impossible, (for example “a triangle with 4 sides”).

      3. Propositions that are necessary, those which must be true and cannot be false, (for example “the number 3”, “2+2=4”, etc.).

      4. Propositions that are contingent, those with are contingently true or false, (for example

      5. The concept of a “Possible World” is a way to explain that reality could be, they do not really exist, (for example to say that it is necessary that triangles have 3 sides means that triangles have 3 sides in all possible worlds).

      Now, we have the God as a necessary entity, because God is the creator of all that exists– omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnicient, etc.

      God has no creator because God is the greatest conceivable being– if God had a creator, then God would not be the greatest, etc.

      As such, if God exists, then God is a necessary being– remember that saying “x is necessary” is synonymous with saying “x is true in all possible worlds”.

      Therefore we have…

      Premise #1: It is possible that God exists. (The concept of God does not contain any logical absurdities.)

      Premise #2: If is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible world.

      Premise #3: If God exists in some possible world, then God exists in all possible worlds, because God is a necessary being, as noted above.

      Premise #4: If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world, because the real world is one of the possible worlds.

      Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

      The logic does hold.

      Debate is generally on the Possibility Premise, Premise #1 above.

      JL Mackie’s Logical Problem Of Evil was defended by Alvin Planting’s Free Will Defense.

      “Many philosophers accept that arguments such as Plantinga’s free will defense (in brief, that possibly God allows evil in order to achieve the ultimately greater good of free will) successfully solve the logical problem of evil in terms of human action;[10] the question of how free will and God’s omniscience are compatible remains, however (see the Argument from free will). Plantinga’s defense further seeks to explain natural evils by positing that the mere logical possibility of “a mighty nonhuman spirit”[11] such as Satan is sufficient to resolve the logical form of the problem of suffering or natural evil. This assertion seems to imply either polytheism or a relatively weak interpretation of divine sovereignty, but since Plantinga’s goal is to defeat only the assertion that God and evil are logically incompatible, even an unlikely but possible, coherent instance of God’s coexistence with evil is sufficient for his purposes.”

      See the Free Will Defense here…

      The argument proves God is either logically necessary or logically impossible, and so the burden is on atheists to find a logical absurdity in Premise #1.

      HTH and God bless you.


      — Mark Kamoski

Comments are closed.