Podcasts about Ontological argument

Welcome to a profound conclusion of our series on the rational foundations of faith in "The Salty Pastor Podcast." In this finale, Jesse and Doug delve into the Ontological Argument, a fascinating intellectual exploration that challenges our perception of existence and the divine.Jesse sets the stage by reflecting on the series' impact, highlighting how these discussions have fortified listeners' understanding and confidence in their faith. Doug, with his characteristic clarity, introduces the Ontological Argument, formulated by Anselm of Canterbury, which asserts that the mere possibility of God's existence in any conceivable realm confirms His existence in ours.This episode isn't just about theological debate; it's about enhancing our cognitive arsenal to defend and articulate our beliefs in a world quick to dismiss faith as irrational. Doug breaks down complex philosophical concepts into digestible insights, demonstrating that rationality doesn't contradict faith but enriches it.As we wrap up this enlightening series, join Jesse and Doug as they navigate through the intellectual landscapes that affirm faith isn't a leap into the darkness but a step towards the light. Whether you're a seeker, a skeptic, or a believer, this episode promises to equip you with thoughtful perspectives that challenge the status quo and invite you to think deeply about the essence of belief and existence.

Welcome back to the Salty Pastor Podcast! Today, we conclude our compelling series on the logical proofs of God's existence with a deep dive into one of philosophy's most intriguing proofs: the Ontological Argument.Developed by Anselm of Canterbury, this argument challenges us to consider the possibility of God as proof of His existence. Unlike other proofs, the Ontological Argument is purely intellectual, exploring God's existence through a framework of logic rather than physical observation or experience.Join us as Pastor Doug breaks down this fascinating argument, which suggests that if God can be conceived in any possible world as a maximally great being, then He must exist in all possible worlds. This thought-provoking session will not only stretch your mind but also solidify the foundation of your faith, empowering you with the confidence to engage in discussions about the rationality of belief in God.Jesse discusses the broader implications of embracing such a philosophical approach to God's existence and how it counters the modern narrative that faith and intellect are mutually exclusive.Tune in to explore how this ancient argument remains profoundly relevant today, challenging the skeptics and affirming the believers. Don't forget to like and subscribe for more insightful episodes that inspire you to think critically and grow spiritually. Join us next time as we explore the real-world impact of atheism and its historical consequences.

The opposing theories that point to the existence of God. __________ Get your copy of The Beginning and End of All Things with your gift of any amount to the Colson Center this month at colsoncenter.org/april. 

In this thought-provoking video, we delve into the best arguments for the existence of God, ranking them in a tier list for easy understanding and comparison. From the cosmological and ontological arguments to the teleological and moral arguments for God, we examine each with a critical eye. This video also explores the personal experience and fine-tuning arguments, providing insights into the philosophical defenses of God. Whether you're a believer, skeptic, or somewhere in between, join us for a comprehensive look at the most compelling evidential arguments for God's existence.Support the show--------------------------If you would want to support the channel and what I am doing, please follow me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/christianityforall Where else to find Josh Yen: Philosophy YT: https://bit.ly/philforallEducation: https://bit.ly/joshyenBuisness: https://bit.ly/logoseduMy Website: https://joshuajwyen.com/

In this video Gavin Ortlund gives an overview and defense of Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. My book on Anselm: https://www.amazon.com/Anselms-Pursuit-Joy-Commentary-Proslogion/dp/0813232759/ Josh Rasmussen, "New Thoughts on My New Gödelian Ontological Argument": https://worldviewdesign.substack.com/p/new-thoughts-about-my-new-godelian David Chalmbers, "Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?": https://consc.net/papers/conceivability.html Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

4 - The Lost Island Argument.mp3

3 - Anselm Ontological Argument.mp3

Anselm of Canterbury (11th century) was the first to present the ontological argument, purporting to demonstrate God's existence through a mere analysis of the definition of God. Aquinas rejected the argument, but Descartes revived it. Kant was thought by many to deliver it a death blow, but it continues to be resuscitated. This lecture is an exercise in philosophical detection: Dr. Mayhew will present the argument and then explain Objectivism's unique reasons for rejecting it as not merely false, but as an absurd rationalization. Recorded at OCON 2023 in Miami, Florida

I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Rubio, a professor of philosophy at Toronto Metropolitan University. He offers some criticisms of the ontological argument defended by William Lane Craig.

In today's episode, Dr. Daniel Vecchio engages ChatGPT in a measured and insightful discussion about his version of Anselm's Ontological Argument. Who says that calm and composed conversations can't be deeply enriching? If you appreciate the content of Philosophy for the People, please like the video and share it with those who enjoy philosophical explorations. Also, consider subscribing for more philosophical discussions in the future. For additional content, check out Pat's philosophy Substack at https://chroniclesofstrength.substack.com 

14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, 16 having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.1 PETER 3:14-16The question is not whether or not you're going to be a theologian, but what kind of theologian you're going to be.”Michael LawrenceTHE DOCTRINE OF GODWHAT IS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE LIKE?19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things…28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.Romans 1:19-23,28I will worship toward Your holy temple,And praise Your nameFor Your lovingkindness and Your truth;For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.PSALM 138:2HOW DO WE KNOW GOD EXISTS? Inner Knowing (inward evidence)21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Romans 1:21For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Hebrews 8:10"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"Hebrews 10:1614 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them Romans 2:14-15 Moral Argument: argues that there are objectively valid moral values, and therefore, there must be an absolute from which they are derived.If everything wasn't created ON PURPOSE, then nothing that is created HAS PURPOSE. Ontological Argument: argues that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God.Presuppositional Argument: argues that the basic beliefs of theists and non-theists require God as a necessary pre-condition.HUMANS WERE MADE FOR WORSHIPTo worship is to live for something.“The human heart is a perpetual idol factory.”John Calvin22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things…28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.Romans 1:22-23,28 Nature and Scripture (outward evidence)19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made.Romans 1:19-20“We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God… Were we able to extract from any man a complete answer to the question, ‘What comes to mind when you think about God?' Weight predict with certainty the spiritual future of that man.”A.W. TozerInstead of glorifying God we transformed our idea of Him into forms and images more comfortable to our corrupt and darkened hearts.David Guzik“Here's how you know you've created God in your own image: he agrees with you on everything…”John Mark Cromer16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.Acts 17:16-21 As Paul sailed to Athens from the sea near Berea, he came to a city he had probably never been to before, and like any tourist, he was ready to be impressed by this famous and historic city – which, hundreds of years before, was one of the most glorious and important cities in the world. But when Paul toured Athens, he was only depressed by the magnitude of the idolatry he saw all around.David Guzik22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.Acts 17:22-23WHAT IS GOD LIKE? 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[c] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.Acts 17:24-25GOD IS… INDEPENDENTIndependent: God does not need us or the rest of creation for anything, yet we and the rest of creation bring Him glory and bring Him joy. Someone might wonder, if God does not need us for anything, then are we important at all? Is there any significance to our existence or to the existence of the rest of creation? In response it must be said that we are in fact very meaningful because God has created us and he has determined that we would be meaningful to him… to be significant to God is to be significant in the most ultimate sense. No greater personal significance can be imagined.Wayne GrudemThe starting place of knowing God is knowing His love.26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for“‘In him we live and move and have our being';[d]as even some of your own poets have said,“‘For we are indeed his offspring.'[e]Acts 17:26-28GOD IS… INFINITE AND PERSONALEvery day I will bless you    and praise your name forever and ever.Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised,    and his greatness is unsearchable.Psalm 145:2-3Apart from the true religion found in the Bible, no system of religion has a god who is both infinite and personal. For example, the gods of ancient Greek and Roman mythology were personal, but not infinite: they had weaknesses and frequent moral failures, even petty rivalries. On the other hand, deism portrays a god who is infinite but far too removed from the world to be personally involved in it… We can pray to [God] him, worship Him, obey Him, and love Him; and He can speak to us, rejoice in us, and love us.Wayne Grudem29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”Acts 17:29-31 GOD IS… JEALOUS

---Originally Uploaded on 9/7/2021.---   The guys chat with Gavin Ortlund about his recent work on Anselm: "Anselm's Pursuit of Joy." They discuss Anselm's Ontological Argument, his high view of friendship, and more.

From March 2015: Can God be proved by definition? That's the claim of the Ontological Argument for God's existence. Christian Philosopher Peter S Williams and sceptic philosopher Peter Millican from Oxford University explore the different versions of the argument. Williams defends the argument, Millican believes it is flawed. For Peter S Williams: www.peterswilliams.com Peter SW YouTube Playlist on the OA and Peter SW teaching on the argument For Peter Millican: http://www.millican.org/ and Graham Oppy's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Ontological Arguments For Millican's 2011 debate with William Lane Craig Click here. • Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: https://pod.link/267142101 • More shows, free eBook & newsletter: https://premierunbelievable.com • For live events: http://www.unbelievable.live • For online learning: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/training • Support us in the USA: http://www.premierinsight.org/unbelievableshow • Support us in the rest of the world: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/donate

Dr. Josh Rasmussen was our fifth presenter at CCv1. In this talk, he presents a a new ontological argument based on the positivity of a perfect being. Link to the YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ3ipEeIiRM Our Website: www.capturingchristianity.com Our Patreon: www.patreon.com/capturingchristianity

Battle4Freedom (2023) Sys. Theology Chapters 9&10 - The Existence & Knowability of GodWebsite: http://www.battle4freedom.comNetwork: https://www.mojo50.comStreaming: https://www.rumble.com/c/Battle4FreedomStreaming LIVE on RUMBLE @ https://rumble.com/v2wsvgt-battle4freedom-2023-sys.-theology-chapters-9-and-10-the-existence-and-knowa.htmlBattle4Freedom (2023) Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrinehttps://a.co/d/8qwRimrChapters 9-10Chapter 09: The Existence of GodA. Humanity's Inner Sense of GodB. Believing the Evidence in Scripture and NatureC. Traditional "Proofs" for the Existence of God 1. Cosmological argument 2. Teleological argument 3. Ontological Argument 4. Moral ArgumentD. Only God Can Overcome our sin and Enable us to be persuaded of His ExistenceChapter 10: The Knowability of GodA. The Necessity for God to Reveal Himself to usB. We Can Never Fully Understand GodC. Yet we can know God trulyAOG: Dr. Jason Lilse, Biblical Science Institute, God and sciencehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12238265/Humans-DID-live-dinosaurs-scientists-say.htmlHumans DID live with dinosaurs: New analysis of the fossil record suggests our ancestors briefly coexisted with the prehistoric giants

In episode 232 of the Parker's Pensées Podcast, I'm joined by Dr. Henry Taylor of the University of Birmingham to discuss his new paper "Consciousness as a Natural Kind and the Methodological Puzzle of Consciousness". Check the time stamps to see all the different topics we cover! Find more from Dr. Taylor here: https://henrytaylorphilosophy.com/ if you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal: https://paypal.me/ParkersPensees?locale.x=en_US Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: https://teespring.com/stores/parkers-penses-merch Come talk with the Pensées community on Discord: dsc.gg/parkerspensees Sub to my Substack to read my thoughts on my episodes: https://parknotes.substack.com/ Check out my blog posts: https://parkersettecase.com/ Check out my Parker's Pensées YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbTRurpFP5q4TpDD_P2JDA Check out my other YouTube channel on my frogs and turtles: https://www.youtube.com/c/ParkerSettecase Check me out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trendsettercase Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parkers_pensees/0:00 - The Ontological Argument drew Henry into philosophy 7:03 - why think it's hard to have a 'science' of consciousness? 18:31 - Substance Dualism's Heavy Lifting 30:52 - Could God Put My Soul in a Desk? Thomistic Dualism 34:30 - The Methodological Puzzle of Consciousness 40:04 - Cognitive Access and Global Workspace Theory 58:14 - A Novel Problem of Conceiving Consciousness as a Natural Kind 1:05:24 - Recurrent Processing Theory and Artificial Intelligence 1:17:44 - Natural Kinds vs Functional Concepts 1:24:15 - What kind does a 3D Printed Tiger Fit In? 1:28:07 - The Natural Kind Framework for Consciousness 1:38:11 - The Multiple Kinds of Consciousness Problem and Phenomenal Unity 1:45:15 - Synthetic, Lab-Made Consciousness, Natural Kind Consciousness, and Robot Rights

L055 Deconstructing The Ontological Argument With Arthur Haglund by Christopher Fisher

Can God exist? And if He can exist, is that proof that He actually does? Tim and Marshall discuss another philosophical argument for God's existence: the Ontological Argument.

If you can, please consider donating to my paypal/patreon to keep these debates and conversations going To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/TJump To donate to my PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/TomJump CashApp: $TjumpsChair Youtube Membership Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHXrvsK33VUEcpa4Ar0c0Sg/join Sponsor: Don Fullman, Skeptics of Middle Georgia https://www.facebook.com/groups/591799015097830/?ref=share TJump merch: https://linktr.ee/TJump.Merch (Mugs) https://www.etsy.com/shop/CustomLaserShop?ref=simple-shop-header-name&listing_id=626272860§ion_id=34163225 (Shirts) https://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n:7141123011,p_4:TJump+Merch&ref=bl_sl_s_ap_web_7141123011 TJump NFT's: https://opensea.io/collection/tjump -----------------------------------------CONNECT------------------------------------------ SOCIAL LINKS: Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/tjump Discord: https://discord.io/tjump Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TJump_ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tom.jump.982 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tjump_/ LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/tjumpschair Tictok: @tjumpschair TJump Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE6PnoL9QDYnkiUvykmlLQQ ----------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------- Business email: tejump@comcast.net ---------------------------------------- Further Goals ------------------------------------- Publish my book on epistemology and morality Publish academic papers on solving problems in these fields Become President of the United States Solve world's biggest problems World domination #Atheism #Secularism #Humanism

The idea of God; the generation if the idea of a beneficial God, and the fact that the idea of God itself exists. Anselm of Canterbury was a philosopher in the 11th century, he is most famous for his book the “Proslogion.” In it, he wrote an ontological argument that has several parts, It is worded like a prayer in the Proslogion, but I'll summarize it in simpler words here. First, he states that God can be defined as a supreme being, to have that idea in the mind. All people think of God in this way because it is the definition. Because the idea of God exists, and a concept that is in reality, is greater than that only in the mind, in order for God to truly be the greatest, He must exist. To explore this topic I did some footwork, I spoke to friends, professors, and of course, my Dad.  First, I spoke to Anna Elder, a friend from one of my classes. I asked her some silly questions about Santa Clause, but this was an example of the type of argument Khant did to attempt to combat Anselm's Ontological Argument.  The last time I spoke to Dr. James T. Turner, a philosophy professor at Anderson University, he told me this argument was his favorite. Although pretty confusing to read, Dr. Turner made this easier to understand with great examples Finally, I spoke to my dad, Dr. Ethan Brown, who introduced me to this argument. Although complicated, we worked together to solidify an understanding of this philosophy mind game. This argument has reaffirmed my belief in the necessity of a God. If this argument helped you too, let me know by leaving a 5-star review and share it with a friend you think needs to hear this podcast!

Two beareded and shadow-y men (one of them Dr. Daniel Vecchio) explore the ontological argument.

Interesting questions on God's attributes, including The Trinity”, and recent work on the Ontological Argument.

Simon Kirchin (Kent) chats and introduces the ontological arg.  Check out our in-depth discussion as well.  [Music by Alex Grohl]

1st Part - Anselm and Gaunilo. 2nd Part (starts at 21min) - Descartes, Kant and Malcolm.  Michael Platt, Paul Moore-Bridger and Ben Jones chat with Simon Kirchin.  [Music by Alex Grohl]

The Modal Ontological Argument for God has been revised by William Lane Craig to try to address the classical rebuttals against it... it's new, but is it improved?The Ontological Argumenthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74Is the Ontological Argument Sound? (Interview with Dr. Ben Arbour)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8xFlRM0vYAnswering Anselm's Ontological Argument Playlisthttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpdBEstCHhmVxo2kM7vXoyIxmI1-fz-dDSupport Paulogia athttp://www.patreon.com/paulogiahttp://www.paypal.me/paulogiahttps://www.buymeacoffee.com/paulogiahttps://teespring.com/stores/paulogiaFollow Paulogia athttp://www.twitter.com/paulogia0http://www.facebook.com/paulogia0https://discord.gg/BXbv7DSSupport the show

If it is even possible that God exists, then it follows logically that God does exist. In this episode, Barry Cooper walks us through Anselm's famous argument for the existence of God. Read the transcript: https://simplyputpodcast.com/the-ontological-argument/

Have you ever heard of the Ontological Argument? It can be extremely confusing! Today we are going to explain what the ontological argument is and what people from different belies have to say about it! Subscribe if you enjoy!My InformationInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/l.t._world/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LTWorld123Website: https://ltworld.info/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjZL...Sourceshttps://www.edge.org/conversation/rebecca_newberger_goldstein-36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-godhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=william+lane+craig+on+the+ontological+argument&view=detail&mid=50461C9D4A7CC01600EB50461C9D4A7CC01600EB&FORM=VIRE

Many attempt to prove God's existence based on experience, but what if there were a way to prove the existence of God by using nothing but logic? Sound fishy? Anslem of Canterbury didn't think so. Join us as we look at the Ontological argument, most famously put forth by Anselm. Open Door Philosophy on Twitter @d_parsonage or @opendoorphilOpen Door Philosophy on Instagram @opendoorphilosophyOpen Door Philosophy website at opendoorphilosophy.comContact us via email at contact@opendoorphilosophy.com

Dean Zimmerman joins me in this episode to discuss his relationship with David Lewis, whom he eulogized. We also discussed Lewis's paper on divine evil, and how a classical theist could be a modal realist following Lewis's model. Check out more from Dean Zimmerman here: http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/index1.htm If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or a number of other amounts. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal: https://paypal.me/ParkersPensees?locale.x=en_US Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: https://teespring.com/stores/parkers-penses-merch Check out my blog posts: https://parkersettecase.com/ Check out my Parker's Pensées YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbTRurpFP5q4TpDD_P2JDA Check out my other YouTube channel on my frogs and turtles: https://www.youtube.com/c/ParkerSettecase Check me out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trendsettercase Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parkers_pensees/ Time Is Running by MusicLFiles Link: https://filmmusic.io/song/6203-time-is-running License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/parkers-pensees/support

On The House with SpartanNavigating the world of real estate and property management can be overwhelming and...Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

The Proslogion contains Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological Argument, which is still argued about in philosophical circles today. It's not really convincing, except that it is.

Welcome to the Reformed Classicalist. This is the audio format of Matt Marino's lectures, classes, and sermon series found on YouTube and elsewhere. Find out more, at https://www.reformedclassicalist.com

Joe (@Majesty of Reason) has recently defended the Ontological Argument in a peer-reviewed academic paper that is currently under review. In this conversation, Alex (@CosmicSkeptic) pushes back. Alex's Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/alexjoconnor Joe's Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvWRKmcplBTYQS49AVGsLgw Link to the YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czPBS4FVi2Q Our Website: www.capturingchristianity.com Our Patreon: www.patreon.com/capturingchristianity

An Ontological Argument vs. the Presuppositional (Transcendental) Argument for the existence of God. by John O'Roark More info about this ministry at https://www.fullarmourminstries.org

An Ontological Argument vs. the Presuppositional (Transcendental) Argument for the existence of God. by John O'Roark More info about this ministry at https://www.fullarmourminstries.org

From philosophy comes a remarkable argument that begins with the possibility of God and ends in its certainty. Can you poke some holes in it? Join us and find out. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thomas-griffin8/support

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is Argument and Analysis, Part 7: Proving Too Much, published by Scott Alexander. The fallacy of Proving Too Much is when you challenge an argument because, in addition to proving its intended conclusion, it also proves obviously false conclusions. For example, if someone says “You can't be an atheist, because it's impossible to disprove the existence of God”, you can answer “That argument proves too much. If we accept it, we must also accept that you can't disbelieve in Bigfoot, since it's impossible to disprove his existence as well.” I love this tactic so much. I only learned it had a name quite recently, but it's been my default style of argument for years. It neatly cuts through complicated issues that might otherwise be totally irresolvable. Because here is a fundamental principle of the Dark Arts – you don't need an argument that can't be disproven, only an argument that can't be disproven in the amount of time your opponent has available. In a presidential debate, where your opponent has three minutes, that means all you need to do is come up with an argument whose disproof is inferentially distant enough from your audience that it will take your opponent more than three minutes to explain it, or your audience more than three minutes' worth of mental effort to understand the explanation. The noncentral fallacy is the easiest way to do this. “Martin Luther King was a criminal!” “Although what you say is technically correct, categories don't work in the way your statement is impl – ” “Oh, sorry, time's up.” But pretty much anything that assumes a classical Aristotelian view of concepts/objects is gold here. The same is true of any deontological rules your audience might be attached to. I tend to get stuck in the position of having argue against those Dark Artsy tactics pretty often. And the great thing about Proving Too Much is that it can demolish an entire complicated argument based on all sorts of hard-to-tease-apart axioms in a split second. For example, After Virtue gave (though it does not endorse) this example of deontological reasoning: I cannot will that my mother should have had an abortion when she was pregnant with me, except perhaps if it had been certain that the embryo was dead or gravely damaged. But if I cannot will this in my own case, how can I consistently deny to others the right to life that I claim for myself? I would break the so-called Golden Rule unless I denied that a mother in general has a right to an abortion. It seemed unfair for me to move on in the book without at least checking whether this argument was correct and I should re-evaluate my pro-choice position. But that would require sorting through all the weird baggage here, like what it means to will something, and whether your obligations to potential people are the same as your obligations to real people, and how to apply the Golden Rule across different levels of potentiality. Instead I just thought to myself: “Imagine my mother had raped my father, leading to my conception. I cannot will that a policeman had prevented this rape, but I also do not want to enshrine the general principle that policemen in general have no right to prevent rape. Therefore, this argument proves too much.” It took all of five seconds. Sometimes a quick Proving Too Much can tear apart extremely subtle philosophical arguments that have been debated for centuries. For example, Pascal's Wager also proves Pascal's Mugging (they may both be correct, but bringing the Mugging in at least proves ignoring their correctness to be a reasonable and impossible-to-critique life choice). And Anselm's Ontological Argument seems much less foreboding when you realize it can double as a method for creating jelly donuts on demand. Interestingly, I think that one of the examples of proving too much on Wikipedia can itself...

If you can, please consider donating to my paypal/patreon to keep these debates and conversations going To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/TJump To donate to my PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/TomJump CashApp: $TjumpsChair Youtube Membership Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHXrvsK33VUEcpa4Ar0c0Sg/join Sponsor: Don Fullman, Skeptics of Middle Georgia https://www.facebook.com/groups/591799015097830/?ref=share TJump merch: https://linktr.ee/TJump.Merch (Mugs) https://www.etsy.com/shop/CustomLaserShop?ref=simple-shop-header-name&listing_id=626272860§ion_id=34163225 (Shirts) https://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n:7141123011,p_4:TJump+Merch&ref=bl_sl_s_ap_web_7141123011 -----------------------------------------CONNECT------------------------------------------ My Website: tomjump.org SOCIAL LINKS: Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/tjump Discord: discord.io/tjump Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TJump_ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tom.jump.982 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tjump_/ LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/tjumpschair Tictok: @tjumpschair TJump Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE6PnoL9QDYnkiUvykmlLQQ ----------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------- Business email: tejump@comcast.net ---------------------------------------- Further Goals ------------------------------------- Publish my book on epistemology and morality Publish academic papers on solving problems in these fields Become President of the United States Solve world's biggest problems World domination #Atheism #Secularism #Humanism

If you can, please consider donating to my paypal/patreon to keep these debates and conversations going To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/TJump To donate to my PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/TomJump Video Edit by Mukund Subramanian Website : www.mknd.in Instagram : @mknd_s CashApp: $TjumpsChair Youtube Membership Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHXrvsK33VUEcpa4Ar0c0Sg/join Sponsor: Don Fullman, Skeptics of Middle Georgia https://www.facebook.com/groups/591799015097830/?ref=share TJump merch: https://linktr.ee/TJump.Merch (Mugs) https://www.etsy.com/shop/CustomLaserShop?ref=simple-shop-header-name&listing_id=626272860§ion_id=34163225 (Shirts) https://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n:7141123011,p_4:TJump+Merch&ref=bl_sl_s_ap_web_7141123011 -----------------------------------------CONNECT------------------------------------------ My Website: tomjump.org SOCIAL LINKS: Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/tjump Discord: https://discord.gg/N2eQp4h Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TJump_ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tom.jump.982 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tjump_/ TJump Gaming: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE6PnoL9QDYnkiUvykmlLQQ ----------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------- Business email: tejump@comcast.net ---------------------------------------- Further Goals ------------------------------------- Publish my book on epistemology and morality Publish academic papers on solving problems in these fields Become President of the United States Solve world's biggest problems World domination #Atheism #Secularism #Humanism settings wheel icon : Icons made by href="https://www.freepik.com" title="Freepik"Freepik from href="https://www.flaticon.com/" title="Flaticon" www.flaticon.com crown icon : Icons made by a href="https://www.freepik.com" title="Freepik"Freepik/a from a href="https://www.flaticon.com/" title="Flaticon"www.flaticon.com pizza icon : Icons made by href="https://www.freepik.com" title="Freepik Freepik from href="https://www.flaticon.com/" title="Flaticon"www.flaticon.com garbage truck icon: Icons made by a href="https://www.freepik.com" title="Freepik"Freepik from href="https://www.flaticon.com/" title="Flaticon"www.flaticon.com

...no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavors to establish. David Hume In this episode, we consider objections and critiques to the ontological argument, as set out by St. Anselm/Plantinga. We specifically look at Gaunilo's response, as well as critiques by Kant and Aquinas. In response to St. Anselm, there have been many interesting points made over the years, and the topic also highlights the rationalist vs. empiricist debate in the renaissance. In the next episode, we will look at Gottfried Leibniz and his contribution to science, philosophy, and mathematics. Always feel free to let us know what you think, or any episode requests. We would love to hear from you! Thank you for listening and we'll see you next time as we search for truth on the road that never ends!

Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time - Voltaire In this episode, we look at St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God put forth in 1077. The version we examine is Alvin Plantinga's because it is better structured for discussion. It seeks to prove the existence of God through deductive argument using a reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This argument can also be seen as an extension of our discussion of Descartes, and his efforts to prove the existence of God through deductive argument, as well as Plato's view of the good. In the next episode, we will examine some critiques of this argument. Always feel free to let us know what you think, or any episode requests. We would love to hear from you! Thank you for listening and we'll see you next time as we search for truth on the road that never ends!

In this episode of The Examined Life, Phil Kallberg plays a discussion he had with Suan Sonna of Intellectual Conservatism on the Moral and Ontological Arguments for God's existence. He makes a case for the soundness of these arguments. (March 6, 2020)

In this episode of The Examined Life, Phil Kallberg and Ben Arbour continue discussing the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. In the second half Phil throws every "good" objection to the argument that he can find at Ben and gives Ben the chance to parry the objections. This is part two of a two part episode. (April 12, 2019)

Phil welcomes Ben Arbour for two special episodes discussing the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. In this first part Ben and Phil explain what the Ontological Argument is, what it attempts to do, and Ben gives his own take on how to make it work. This is part one of a two part episode. (April 5, 2019)