El Argumento Ontológico

Fe Razonable

20 Dec 202004:40

Summary

TLDRIn 1078, Anselm of Canterbury introduced the ontological argument, suggesting that if it's even possible for God to exist, then God must exist. This argument has divided philosophers ever since. Some, like Schopenhauer, dismissed it as a pleasant joke, while others, including Charles Hudson, Norman Malcolm, and Alvin Plantinga, considered it solid. The argument posits that God can be defined as a maximally great being, existing in all possible worlds. If such a being exists in any possible world, it exists in all, and thus, in the real world. Critics argue that the concept of a maximally great being is not as coherent as it seems, drawing parallels to absurd ideas like a 'married bachelor' or a 'square circle.'

Takeaways

📜 Anselmo de Canterbury introduced the ontological argument in 1078, suggesting that if it's even possible for God to exist, then God must exist.
🏛️ The ontological argument has been a subject of debate among philosophers, with some like Schopenhauer dismissing it as a pleasant joke, while others consider it a solid philosophical stance.
🌐 God can be defined as a being of maximal greatness, which includes being omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in all possible worlds.
🔮 A possible world refers to ways the world could have been, and something existing in a possible world means it would exist if the world were that way.
🦄 Unicorns, despite not existing in the real world, can be said to exist in some possible world, unlike a 'married bachelor' which is logically incoherent and cannot exist in any possible world.
🌟 For a maximally great being to be truly grand, it must exist in all possible worlds, not just in some.
🧠 The argument posits that if a maximally great being exists in any possible world, it exists in all possible worlds, and therefore, it exists in the real world.
🚫 Atheists are challenged by this argument to not just claim God does not exist, but to assert that it is impossible for God to exist.
🍕 A parody of the argument is made with a 'maximally great pizza,' highlighting the difference between coherent and incoherent concepts, as the properties making a pizza 'great' are subjective and contextual.
🤔 The ontological argument suggests that the idea of God is intuitively coherent, and if God's existence is possible, then it is actual.

Q & A

Who was Anselm of Canterbury and what was his significant argument regarding God?
-Anselm of Canterbury was a monk who, in the year 1078, argued that if it is even possible that God exists, then it logically follows that God does exist. His argument is known as the ontological argument.
What is the ontological argument?
-The ontological argument is a philosophical argument that posits that if it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then such a being must exist in all possible worlds, and therefore, it exists in the real world.
How does the ontological argument define God?
-In the context of the ontological argument, God is defined as a being that is maximally great, which includes being omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in all possible worlds.
What is meant by a 'possible world' in the argument?
-A 'possible world' refers to ways the world could have been. Saying that something exists in a possible world means that if the world were that way, then that thing would have existed.
Why is the idea of a 'single man married' used as an example in the script?
-The idea of a 'single man married' is used to illustrate a concept that is logically incoherent and cannot exist in any possible world, in contrast to the idea of God, which is considered logically coherent.
How does the script differentiate between the idea of a maximally great pizza and a maximally great being?
-The script differentiates by stating that there are no intrinsic maximum values that make a pizza grandioso, and that the concept of a maximally great pizza is incoherent because it cannot be consumed if it exists in all logically possible worlds.
What is the main point of contention regarding the ontological argument according to the script?
-The main point of contention is whether the concept of a maximally great being is logically coherent. If it can be shown that the idea is incoherent, the argument fails.
What does the script suggest about the coherence of the idea of a maximally great being?
-The script suggests that the idea of a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in all possible worlds seems to be a coherent concept.
How does the script conclude the existence of God based on the ontological argument?
-The script concludes that if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then God really exists, as per the ontological argument.
What does the script imply about the burden of proof for atheists regarding the ontological argument?
-The script implies that atheists must contend not just that God does not exist, but that it is impossible for God to exist, in response to the ontological argument.
What is the significance of the ontological argument in the history of philosophy as presented in the script?
-The ontological argument has caused a significant division among philosophers since it was first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury. It continues to be debated by prominent philosophers across the centuries.

Outlines

00:00

📖 The Ontological Argument for God's Existence

The script discusses the ontological argument for the existence of God, first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in 1078. It explains that if it's even possible for a supreme being to exist, then logically, such a being must exist. The argument defines God as a maximally great being, which would be omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in all possible worlds. The script contrasts this with logically incoherent concepts like a married bachelor or a square circle. It also addresses potential criticisms, such as the argument's reliance on the coherence of the concept of a maximally great being, and compares it to the incoherence of the idea of a maximally great pizza, which lacks intrinsic values and is relative to consumer taste.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Anselmo de Canterbury

Anselmo de Canterbury was an 11th-century philosopher, theologian, and Archbishop of Canterbury who is known for his ontological argument for the existence of God. In the video, he is mentioned as the originator of the argument that if it is even possible for God to exist, then it logically follows that God must exist.

💡Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is a philosophical argument that claims that the existence of God can be proven through pure reason alone. It is the central theme of the video, as it discusses Anselmo's argument that God's existence is a logical necessity if the concept of a 'maximally great being' is coherent.

💡Maximally Great Being

A Maximally Great Being is defined as a being that possesses all possible perfections, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection. The video uses this concept to argue that if such a being is even possible, it must exist in all possible worlds, including the real world.

💡Possible Worlds

Possible worlds are ways the world could have been or could be. The video explains that something existing in a possible world means that if the world were that way, then that thing would exist. This concept is crucial for understanding the ontological argument, as it posits that a Maximally Great Being must exist in all possible worlds.

💡Omnipotence

Omnipotence refers to the power to do anything that is logically possible. In the context of the video, it is one of the attributes of a Maximally Great Being, suggesting that such a being would have unlimited power across all possible worlds.

💡Omniscience

Omniscience is the state of knowing everything that can be known. The video includes omniscience as a defining characteristic of a Maximally Great Being, implying that God, if He exists, would have complete knowledge in all possible worlds.

💡Moral Perfection

Moral perfection implies being morally flawless and embodying the highest moral standards. The video argues that a Maximally Great Being would have to be morally perfect in all possible worlds, which is a key attribute in the ontological argument for God's existence.

💡Logical Incoherence

Logical incoherence refers to a concept or idea that is self-contradictory or impossible to reconcile with logic. The video suggests that if the concept of God were logically incoherent, like a 'square circle,' the ontological argument would fail.

💡Schopenhauer

Arthur Schopenhauer was a 19th-century German philosopher who is mentioned in the video as having dismissed the ontological argument as a 'pleasant joke.' His opinion contrasts with other philosophers who find the argument to be sound, highlighting the ongoing debate over the argument's validity.

💡Parody

The video uses the concept of parody to illustrate the potential fallacy of extending the ontological argument to absurd concepts, such as a 'maximally great pizza.' This parody serves to underscore the argument's limitations and the importance of coherence in philosophical reasoning.

💡Atheism

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of deities. The video concludes by stating that atheists cannot merely argue that God does not exist; they must argue that it is impossible for God to exist, which challenges the ontological argument's claim that God's existence is a logical necessity.

Highlights

In 1078, Anselm of Canterbury proposed that if it's even possible that God exists, then logically, God must exist.

Anselm's argument became known as the ontological argument.

The ontological argument has caused a significant division among philosophers.

19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer dismissed the argument as a pleasant joke.

Prominent 20th-century philosophers like Charles Hudson, Norman Malcolm, and Alvin Plantinga consider the argument sound.

God can be defined as a being greater than which none greater can be conceived.

For a being to be maximally great, it would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

A possible world refers to ways the world could have been.

Something existing in a possible world means it could have existed if the world were that way.

Unicorns do not exist in the real world but seem to exist in some possible worlds.

A married bachelor does not exist in any possible world because the concept is logically incoherent.

If a maximally great being is possible, then it exists in some possible world.

For a being to be maximally great, it must exist in all possible worlds.

If a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the real world.

Atheists must argue not just that God does not exist, but that it is impossible for God to exist.

The argument's steps from 2 to 6 are direct and largely uncontroversial.

If the concept of God can be shown to be logically incoherent, the argument would fail.

The idea of a maximally great being does not seem absurd like a square circle or a married bachelor.

The notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being existing in all possible worlds seems coherent.

A parody of the argument could be made for a maximally great pizza, but it wouldn't hold because pizza greatness is subjective.

A maximally great pizza would have to exist in all logically possible worlds, which is incoherent since a pizza is meant to be consumed.

The idea of a maximally great pizza is incoherent, unlike the intuitively coherent idea of God.

The ontological argument shows that if God's existence is possible, then God actually exists.