Thank you so much: a very helpful explanation, particularly in your reminder that the context of the o. argument is a prayer. Still, is it right to say A. that St Anselm’s does not ultimately prove the existence of God and B. that he does disprove the atheist? Wouldn’t B in the end entail A? (I.e., if it s not the case that there is no God, then it must be the case that there is a God.)
An atheist would say, Existence is not a predicate, I don’t have to think of god existing because existing is always something in in relation to a domain. It isn’t something essential to the object itself. Existence is more something that operates on essential properties. So no, you don’t have to conceive of god/mgb to exist. For existence doesn’t change his essence.
It is a possible that in the far and distant future a sufficiently advanced civilization discovered the true nature of the universe and traveled back in time to create the universe. No god required.
Thomas, the so called saint of Aquinas, made on it clearer points in the Summa Contra Gentiles… he clarified what is persona, what is natura… he reached a deeper comprehension on the topic than Anselm, the saint of Aosta…
In order for this to be the most circular argument it must exist; for otherwise a more circular argument that really exists would be more circular by really existing. Circularly. In order... otherwise you’re a fool! But the atheist is in fact saying that the very concept of a god is both definable (even if as undefinable) and unintelligible.
At the 16:40 mark, you said "witches do not exist". In what respect can you make such a knowledge claim as we have many people today that think themselves a witch. The Bible references witches as well, not the least being the witch of Endor and the demon possessed girl in Acts 16 who could tell the future.
I've only studied political philosophy so I'm a bit out of my depth here. Would it be possible to come from a different perspective, in that, it isn't so much that God exists but thinking exists? That doesn't disprove God's existence. Urg! I'm going to stick to Heidegger in that God is outside of space and time so is unknowable.
@@crockettlegendas6126, yeah, I do understand the argument. I studied Plato, so yeah, I DO know the Platonic background of Anselm's argument. Secondly, even if some person doesn't understand an argument, that doesn't mean the argument is sound. Nor does it mean that other skeptics of said argument don't understand the argument.
A "huge advance"? Really ? One more example of confusion between philosophy and the history of philosophy . This stuff should be relegated to the Department of History in the University and taught as one chapter in the history of human civilization. Instead, it constitutes >90% of what passes as "philosophy" in the academic establishment (admittedly, some of it not quite as navel-gazing as Anselm's). Bonevac, do you really believe that this stuff has any relevance whatsoever to how humanity should be thinking in the 21st-century?
Yes? In part, because there's no clear distinction between history of philosophy and philosophy in my view. A lot of modern philosophical discourse is borderline unintelligible without the prerequisite background information of everything that came before it. "Navel gazing" or not, Anselm and the Scholastic tradition he pioneered revolutionized the liberal arts on many different levels. But that's an understatement because the Scholastics revolutionized all of Western thought.
The argument fails from the get go. It's not actually possible to conceive of a maximally great being. The moment you think about a maximally great being you just need to think of something that could beat it in an arm wrestle. Hey presto you were not thinking of a maximally great being. The human mind cannot actually conceive an ultimate being
There are different levels of conception. I can conceive of a word, for example. I can conceive of a concept. Hence, I can conceive of the concept of a GCB.
@hifijohn I'm not arguing for the existence or non existence of anything. I'm perfectly comfortable with people taking either position. I just don't think the human mind is capable of visualising a maximally great being
@Jimmy-iy9pl I'm OK with that. But conceiving of the concept is not the same as conceiving the thing itself. I can conceive the concept of an unstoppable force. But I can't conceive that force meeting an immovable object. The moment I try the conception is shown to be an illusion. Conceiving a concept is not enough
Hope you’re staying safe during the plague. The library seems like a good place to hide out for a while.
Great lecture, thanks!
Very well done!!
Good explication!
Anselm is French for “begs the question.”
The argument doesn’t beg the question though. Try again.
Thank you so much: a very helpful explanation, particularly in your reminder that the context of the o. argument is a prayer. Still, is it right to say A. that St Anselm’s does not ultimately prove the existence of God and B. that he does disprove the atheist? Wouldn’t B in the end entail A? (I.e., if it s not the case that there is no God, then it must be the case that there is a God.)
An atheist would say, Existence is not a predicate, I don’t have to think of god existing because existing is always something in in relation to a domain. It isn’t something essential to the object itself. Existence is more something that operates on essential properties.
So no, you don’t have to conceive of god/mgb to exist. For existence doesn’t change his essence.
It is a possible that in the far and distant future a sufficiently advanced civilization discovered the true nature of the universe and traveled back in time to create the universe. No god required.
Thomas, the so called saint of Aquinas, made on it clearer points in the Summa Contra Gentiles… he clarified what is persona, what is natura… he reached a deeper comprehension on the topic than Anselm, the saint of Aosta…
So does the argument work or not?
In order for this to be the most circular argument it must exist; for otherwise a more circular argument that really exists would be more circular by really existing. Circularly. In order... otherwise you’re a fool! But the atheist is in fact saying that the very concept of a god is both definable (even if as undefinable) and unintelligible.
So says the joyous ape of proud popular opinion.
That's a logical contradiction. A definition means something is intelligible.
Thank you
At the 16:40 mark, you said "witches do not exist". In what respect can you make such a knowledge claim as we have many people today that think themselves a witch. The Bible references witches as well, not the least being the witch of Endor and the demon possessed girl in Acts 16 who could tell the future.
I've only studied political philosophy so I'm a bit out of my depth here. Would it be possible to come from a different perspective, in that, it isn't so much that God exists but thinking exists? That doesn't disprove God's existence. Urg! I'm going to stick to Heidegger in that God is outside of space and time so is unknowable.
Witches didn't exist? Really?
Lol, you supernaturalists are just cute.
I believe God does exist, but do not find Anselm's "proof" convincing.
You just don't understand it.
@@crockettlegendas6126 Anselm's ontological argument doesn't make sense. Premise 1 directly contradicts premise 2.
@@crockettlegendas6126, yeah, I do understand the argument. I studied Plato, so yeah, I DO know the Platonic background of Anselm's argument. Secondly, even if some person doesn't understand an argument, that doesn't mean the argument is sound. Nor does it mean that other skeptics of said argument don't understand the argument.
A "huge advance"? Really ? One more example of confusion between philosophy and the history of philosophy . This stuff should be relegated to the Department of History in the University and taught as one chapter in the history of human civilization. Instead, it constitutes >90% of what passes as "philosophy" in the academic establishment (admittedly, some of it not quite as navel-gazing as Anselm's). Bonevac, do you really believe that this stuff has any relevance whatsoever to how humanity should be thinking in the 21st-century?
Yes? In part, because there's no clear distinction between history of philosophy and philosophy in my view. A lot of modern philosophical discourse is borderline unintelligible without the prerequisite background information of everything that came before it.
"Navel gazing" or not, Anselm and the Scholastic tradition he pioneered revolutionized the liberal arts on many different levels. But that's an understatement because the Scholastics revolutionized all of Western thought.
The argument fails from the get go. It's not actually possible to conceive of a maximally great being. The moment you think about a maximally great being you just need to think of something that could beat it in an arm wrestle. Hey presto you were not thinking of a maximally great being. The human mind cannot actually conceive an ultimate being
If you have to use bad philosophy to prove something exists, then it doesnt exist.
There are different levels of conception. I can conceive of a word, for example. I can conceive of a concept. Hence, I can conceive of the concept of a GCB.
@@hifijohn If this is supposed to be mocking the OA, this is deeply ironic.
@hifijohn I'm not arguing for the existence or non existence of anything. I'm perfectly comfortable with people taking either position. I just don't think the human mind is capable of visualising a maximally great being
@Jimmy-iy9pl I'm OK with that. But conceiving of the concept is not the same as conceiving the thing itself. I can conceive the concept of an unstoppable force. But I can't conceive that force meeting an immovable object. The moment I try the conception is shown to be an illusion. Conceiving a concept is not enough