all right lecture 10 we're gonna deal now with if I can be candid about it what many people believe to be the hardest version or the hardest arguments to deal with these are called ontological arguments these were first called Anselm's arguments because st. Anselm as we'll see in just a few moments was one of the first ones to make these kinds of arguments although st. Agustin does make some arguments like this as well but Anselm certainly puts together an argument that's quite nifty and unique for his day nobody never really done it that way it's referred to as Anselm's argument up until Immanuel Kant's and Immanuel Kant renames them unto logical arguments and it kind of stuck that's just what we call them now we call them ontological arguments ok so I'm gonna explain what they are in just a minute but before I do that let me start off with a strange argument ok let me and and let me just say here the design of me showing you here this and starting with this is deliberately to make you say huh no that could never work actually there's a lot of philosophers in the world today that think what I'm about to show you is a really good argument for God's existence and I need you just so we can work through it I need you to kind of feel the strangeness of this and the oddity of this and the no way of this ok so the argument a very simple argument could go like this number one God possibly exists well if that's true therefore we could say God necessarily exists sounds crazy right sounds like there's no way that that could be you tell me just because you think God possibly exists that that means necessarily he has to exist yep that's exactly what the arguments saying now to get there though I need to walk you through the history of these arguments introduce some terminology to you that's essential for understanding how an argument like that could work because those a lot a couple of those words in that argument don't really mean what you think they mean at least not in philosophical literature and once I've done that I think by then you should be able to understand what all that means ok all right so let's jump in again argument God possibly exists therefore God necessarily exists how in the world do we get there these are ontological arguments okay starting with the basics in short what all ontological arguments do every one of them no matter you're dealing with an sounds are more recent modal arguments like the one I just gave you okay all versions of ontological arguments they start with the idea of God a very specific idea namely that he's perfect and then they argue from that concept for his actual existence so whether what they're gonna say is atheist Christian theist broadly doesn't matter everybody agrees that if God existed he'd be a perfect being okay and if that's true then we get going now what these big what they disagree with is not the definition of God but what they disagree on is the actual existence of God okay so these arguments as I mentioned they're first put forward by st. Anselm again maybe a little disclaimer on that with the Gustin but be that as it may and sums the popularizer of that argument I'm going to show you that argument then Rene Descartes makes an argument similar to this Norman Malcolm and Charles Hartshorne make an argument like this album planning guy makes an argument like this even peter van inwagen is gonna make an argument like this and then there's the argument we just saw that I'll show you in just a second okay we'll come back to that argument a minute after we walked it all the way through so the more recent versions of these arguments have taken what we call a modal form all right arguing from the possibility of God to the necessity of God okay now I need to introduce those terms of modal that's where there are a couple terms in that argument I just showed you that don't mean what you think they do okay I'll introduce those modal terms and explain what we mean by those terms in the argument and then maybe the argument oh wow still might not be convinced but but you'll at least understand how the argument tracks and it's at best I mean at worst very interesting in in at best these arguments are quite persuasive you remember in one of the last lectures I introduced this book to you but my supervisor Eugene Nagasawa I mentioned to you that Yujin is not a Christian but he is a theist he believes that there is God and in my first real for sitting down face to face with him at the beginning of my doctoral work I'd read enough of his stuff that I knew in fact he was theistic but he didn't seem to be a Christian because he had took some exceptions with a number of Christian ideas that were kind of fundamental and so as we sat down I said you didn't let me see if I got you right you believed in God he said yep I said but you're not a Christian he said nope I said are you anything he said nope I'm completely non-religious and so we started talking I was like well tell me what convinces you and he said well the arguments I mean I'm convinced by some of the arguments for God's existence well immediately I start thinking cosmological arguments teleological argument things like that I asked him he's like nope not that what about teleological nope not that I go moral argument nope not that Yujin what persuade you then and to my surprise it was ontological arguments for God's existence that persuaded him there must be a God so yes all that to say there are very serious philosophers today live that are persuaded by this now to get you there and help you see how those work again you may not be persuaded by them when it's all said and done but I'll at least talk to you through the history and help you see how we got here and they're interesting at worst they're persuasive at best okay all right and sums argument here's how it works and again you may not be convinced by this at all in a little book I'm coming right back to the slide in a little book called the press lucky on it's actually more like a pamphlet it's in print it's like 25 pages if you bought like the Oxford edition of the complete works of Anselm or the collected works of Anselm or something like that you get a little version of the Procyon it's a prayer to God where he's doing philosophical theology he starts off believing in God wants to understand it so he formulates this argument so that he can really sort of establish it and then he philosophizes about the nature of God early on in the pregnancy Elle makes this argument ok premise 1 quote man can conceive of a greatest conceivable being call it the GCB greatest conceivable being just real quick coming right back to slide his actual language is we can conceive of quote that than which a greater can't be thought in quote all right that's cumbersome and wordy and uh too much to track around the concept there's of a greatest conceivable being okay so he says basically you and I can conceive of a being that's the greatest possible being that there is okay imagine that being now it has every possible attribute and it has the maximal amount of it and it's amazing you can't think of a better being okay now he says this premise to it's more perfect and is greater to exist than to not exist and that makes sense right something that doesn't exist is not as good as something that well does exist well now to be clear to flesh that out a little bit more there could be maybe you picked up on this about what I just said well there's to say that the thing doesn't exist well what does that mean it just simply means it's not concrete it's not physical but we were able to imagine it so what if it exists as an imaginary thing versus a real thing in the external world well that's what premise three is designed to take out right that idea to exist outside the mind is greater than to exist in the mind only let me come back the slide let me illustrate it imagine that I said I hey I'm gonna give you twenty dollar bill okay I'm gonna give you twenty dollars you said great that's awesome I love this class and you say okay when are we gonna get it and I say well I've already given it to you they said no I didn't yeah I did no I didn't get it and you ask where is it and I would just say well it's a mental twenty dollar bill it's not a paper twenty dollar bill it's a mental twenty dollar bill and I've already given it to you it's in your mental account now here's the question for you which would you rather have the mental twenty dollar bill or the physical paper twenty dollar bill surely you'd rather have the one that actually exists outside the mind yeah you want one that's real in the world that's premise three God to be greater would have to be the kind of thing that's not just a mental construct God would have to qualify as greater than that God would have to be outside the mind so you can conceive of a greatest conceivable being greatest it's more perfect to exist and not exist it's more even more perfect to be outside the mind and inside the mind so all that to say unless God is outside the mind he's not the greatest conceivable being premise for therefore to conceive of such a being God logically entails that that being exists premise 5 to say that God does not exist is contradictory conclusion therefore to say that God exists is logically true and you might be inclined at this point to say what no way well you wouldn't be alone there's lots and lots of philosophers throughout history that have suggested this argument does not work even the good guys in the Christian camp in fact I have to be honest with you I am not inclined to think that that arguments worth a whole lot at all I don't think that that argument works at all maybe some of these other arguments i'ma show you in a minute but that particular one I'm not buying into that one now lots of philosophers have thought that there's something wrong with it putting your finger however on exactly what is wrong with it is very very difficult to do so look at it again I mean where exactly does the argument go wrong if you're having a hard time telling where it goes along wrong you're not alone lots philosophers throughout history just it doesn't pass the smell test I can't quite put my finger on why it's faulty but it's faulty and I just know it is ok that's what a lot of people would be inclined to say there's a famous objection by a guy named Juanillo who responds to it and Beth says well in some use and by the way Gunilla is a believer and he writes a little response to this called quote on behalf of the fool so in other words Ansem starts off the fool is said in his heart that there is no God let me show you why because he can conceive of the being if you can conceive it entails us existence and Guanella says well on behalf of the fool look by your logic Anselm we could conceive of a greatest tropical island and our conception of it would entail that it must actually exist and Anselm responds back to this by saying no you silly boy that won't work because islands as finite things are not the kinds of things that ever could be greatest conceivable x' whereas God an infinite being is the kind of thing that could be the greatest conceivable being and I think an sums right about that be that as it may I don't think this arguments super persuasively so yeah if this is all the ontological argument is then we might be stuck it doesn't seem like it's all that strong well fortunately it's not the only argument that could be given we have de cartes argument this too is an ontological argument in that it argues from the idea of God to the existence of God here's how he does it premise 1 he says when I think of God I'm necessitated to ascribe all perfections to him in short all Descartes is doing there is getting the concept of God clear again remember we're talking about God so it's got to be the greatest possible thing we have to ascribe to this God every perfection ok so he's starting off with the right concept all right premise 2 and I'll just go ahead and alert you now this is where the rub is if there is one premise two existence is a perfection so you have to prescribe all perfection to him existence is a perfection so therefore three I'd be necessitated to ascribe existence to God is essentially what Descartes would say if that's true well then God must exist well as I've already said to you this is where the rub is right here nobody's really taking shots at you no I'm disgusted to describe all perfections to him I'm I'm not sure that people would take shots at premise three says I'm necessitated to ascribe existence to God Immanuel Kant takes exception with premise two here Kant says existence isn't a perfection it's just a brute fact that you either exist or you don't it's not a perfection I mean Klein to agree with Conte there on that existence its kind of existence maybe it's a perfection in the sense that it's better to exist than a not exist maybe all descartes starting to do there's flesh out that idea of the $20 bill that I was chasing if that's what he means by that then maybe this is strong but all that to say there's some rub historically on that point right there well we've seen two arguments so far for God's existence that are from a very idea of God's existence one of those is from enzone and one of those is from Descartes now what happens next is around the turn of the century the turn of them from the 1800's into the 1900s metaphysicians sort of discover what we call modal categories they're new philosophical tools language and concepts that we've not really philosophized with up until about the turn-of-the-century 1900s and for the last hundred years these new concepts modal concepts have been employed in every aspect of philosophy from metaphysics philosophy of religion epistemology you name it philosophy of mind philosophers employ modal categories and modal terms to understand particularly mean by modal if you're not familiar with what that is no worries that's what I'm here for us to explain that to you and by the way and I just say to you I'm about to do for you in about five minutes what I wish somebody had done for me at the beginning of my philosophical journey I just had to hack through the jungle with a machete on this and figure this out myself I'm gonna explain to you I think in about five minutes and give you a concept of how this works and hopefully that's gonna be very helpful for you okay so in philosophy modality refers to the Khans SAP's of possibility necessity and impossibility and philosophers there should be an S on that employ these concepts to formulate different kinds of arguments ok why do we call these modes well a mode is simply a kind of existence that a thing could have so in other words there's this kind of existence possibility there's this kind of existence necessity and there's this kind of existence impossibility those are different kinds of existence that a thing can have now the next arguments I'm about to show you in just a few minutes you can again see ujin's book the existence of God he walks through these modal categories and these modal arguments in great detail alright just a bit more though about what we mean by this mode of possibility this mode of necessity and this mode of impossibility ok so here are those three necessity here possibility here and impossibility there okay just real simple here's what this means the mode of necessity which is to say the kind of existence that we would call necessary existence the mode of necessity refers to a thing or truth that has to be so in other words when you say necessarily what you're saying is the kind of thing that's not just important or logical when you say something is there of necessity when you say something is there necessarily what you're saying is that it has to be it is impossible for it to not be ok so necessity refers to a thing or a truth that has to be by definition that would be something like God is a good example of that God we don't say as a possible being per se we say that God is a necessary being which is to say the kind of being that has to exist it's impossible for him to not exist okay so the mode of necessity refers to a thing or truth that has to be now we illustrate that concept we illustrate his having to be by noting that it exists in every possible world so this is where it gets modal lots of possible worlds or about enter into your world okay so let me illustrate it here we are in this world in this world I exist and you exist in this world I'm wearing a blue shirt in this world I got on a blue wristband and this world I have books behind me at this particular moment in time and all those things yada yada yada these are the truths of this world but now imagine other circumstances that could have been theirs seems to me the possibility that I would have never become the president of NO BTS seems to me there's the possibility that would never taught this class seems to me that there's the possibility that I would have never married Tara or had to do crew or something like that those are other possibilities what philosophers have said now for about a hundred years and even more than that is those other possibilities represent other possible worlds that could have been now by possible worlds we don't just mean planets right we mean actual different courses of history different lines of history that could have been each of those other alternative lines of history that could have been our other possible worlds okay now if something has necessary existence it means it's the kind of thing that has to be and we'd illustrate it by saying look if there's all these other possible worlds a necessary thing or a necessary truth would be the kind of thing that shows up in every single possible world why because it's the kind of thing that has to be right so if it's a necessary truth then it's a truth that's true for every single possible world if it's a necessary thing then it's the kind of thing that shows up in every single possible world all right so the mode of necessity refers to a thing or a truth that has to be it would therefore be the kind of thing that shows up in every possible world okay all right the mode of possibility or contingency now this is weird okay remember I said in some of the previous arguments contingency in the tow mystic kalam or the cook tow mystic cosmological arguments contingency meant dependent it does not mean that here okay contingent here reference is something that could or could not be okay and there's two terms for that concept the term contingency and the term possibility so I have this mode of existence you have this mode of existence the kind of existence that could be but doesn't have to be right the Unicorn has this kind of existence kind of existence that could be or could not be so the mode of possibility or contingency whichever one you want to use here the mode of possibility of contingency refers to a thing or a truth that can but doesn't have to exist so sometimes exists and sometimes doesn't and using possible worlds we'd illustrate that by noting that it exists in some worlds but not all the worlds so if I have contingent existence or possible existence it means that there's some worlds like this world where I show up but you know what there's some worlds where Ken and Anne never had that romantic night in February of 76 and Jamie do never exists right so there's other possible worlds where I just don't exist okay so I have possible existence or contingent existence which is to say some worlds I show up in in some worlds I just don't this is what we mean by possible existence or contingent existence I know that sounds weird for me to say that I and you possibly exist no no I'm not denying that you actually exist in this world I'm not I'm just saying your mode of existence modally speaking is to say you don't show up in all the worlds just real quick if you showed up in all the worlds would that be contingent it'd be necessary you'd be like God are you like God no you're not so you clearly don't show up in all the worlds right if it shows up all the time it'd be necessary now by contrast what if he shows up none of the times impossible existence that means it never shows up well that would be this next category the mode of impossibility refers to a thing that cannot exist it does not exist so for example a stick with one end right a square circle a married bachelor these things know by definition they're the kinds of things that don't exist so the mode of impossibility refers to a thing that cannot exist and guess what we illustrate it by noting that it does not exist in any possible world okay this is what I'm saying to you around the turn of the 1900s the beginning of the 1900s these categories modal categories of necess neccessity possibility and impossibility sort of introduced into philosophy and philosophers begin making arguments with those concepts in play and that little dinky Rd argue our argument I showed you at the beginning of the beginning of this lecture God possibly exists therefore God necessarily exists it's running on these concepts okay I'll come back to it in a minute and help you see it all right let's employ some modal terms into the ontological arguments all right here we go here's Norman Malcolm and Charles Hart's horns argument this is towards the early part of the 1900s premise 1 God is defined as a maximally great or perfect being okay that is to say God is going to be the kind of being that is supremo maximo he has everything so just ask yourself the question for a second what kind of existence would that be modally contingent probably not impossible clearly not hmm it's gonna be necessary okay so God if he exists is gonna have to be that kind of thing all right now premise to the existence of a perfect being is either impossible or necessary it's got to be one of the other two it can't be contingent now let's think for a minute about why okay I'm coming right back to the slide what what they're saying is God's existence can't be contingent existence why well here's why because if he's contingent remember he'd show up in some of the worlds but not all of them let's imagine he show if there's a thousand possible worlds there'd be more than that but imagine there's only a thousand of them let if you say he's contingent he shows up sometimes but not all the time so let's just imagine that he shows up in five hundred of the available thousand worlds right okay remember you said he's the greatest conceivable bit so if he shows up five hundred and times of the thousand couldn't you ask this question what if he showed up five hundred and one times couldn't we think of a different being that shows up has all the same properties God has that showed up five hundred times but he shows up in one extra world wouldn't that be a better world wouldn't it be a better God sure would now somebody so they'd say you clearly didn't get it right the first time you picked the wrong person to call God because there's other one that shows up has all the same things he has but one more world that's a better God okay couldn't you imagine you had another one that shows up five hundred and two times mm-hmm couldn't you show it imagine another one shows it five hundred four three or six seven ten hey for that matter 999 yeah you can imagine that couldn't you imagine a God that shows up a thousand out of the thousand times and all the possible world yes all right then that one would be the one that we'd want to call God okay so all that to say because of that it can't be contingent so it's all or nothing either he's necessary or he's impossible so either theism is absolutely true or atheism is absolutely true okay now so what we've done here is we've ruled out in premise two the possibility of contingency all right what about impossibility though how are we going to get rid of this one well simple remember just real quick you remember the examples I gave you of impossible stick with one end that is a concept that sure you can you can verbalize it in your mind and I can even say it out loud but the moment you try to chase it down in your mind you immediately realize that there's an inherent absurdity in the concept right a square circle mm-hmm why because by definition there's conflict in that concept right same thing with a married bachelor in all three of those examples the reason we'd have to say it's impossible is because the concept itself is logically contradictory okay now watch this the concept of a perfect being is not impossible why since it's neither nonsensical nor self contradictory meaning the concept of God is not like stick with one end the concept of God is not like square circle the concept of God is not like married bachelor those things are inherently contradictory within their own concept and yet there's nothing within the concept of gods that's that way so clearly he's not contingent and clearly he's not impossible conclusion one therefore a perfect being must be necessary by process of elimination that's all you got left conclusion to therefore be a perfect being actually does exist that's an interesting argument even if kind of hard to follow well let me give you a couple more very quickly all right here's alvin plantinga's argument he this too is a modal argument premise one it's possible that a maximally great God exists okay what he means by possible there is you know he has to show up at least sometimes right and I mean housing atheists gonna dispute that one they would have to it seems to me the Atheist would have to so in other words what he's doing is he's getting the foot in the door with it God's at least possible right and the atheists who come along and reject this but he'd have to demonstrate the impossibility of God and if you remember from the last argument that's really hard for an atheist to do they'd have to prove not only that God doesn't exist in this world but in every possible world the only way to do that is show that the concept is incoherent and it's not so he does the opposite of hearts form and Malcolm starts off with at least the possibility of it okay so it's a it is possible than a maximally great God exists all right premise two if it's possible that I maximally great God being exists then what that means is the maximally great being exists in some possible world because remember we Illustrated a possible world contingent or possible existence means you show up sometimes but not all the time but now ask yourself real quick before we go to premise three coming right back to the slide if he shows up sometimes what does he show up as does he show up as the being that mm is contingent or does he show up as a necessary being premise three if a maximally great being exists in some possible world then it has to exist in every possible world why because God would be by definition necessary B premise for the maximally great being exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world if a maximally great being exists in the actual world that a maximally great being exists period ooh that one's a little harder to follow but still its operating on modal two categories this next one is easier to follow this is peter van inwagen z' argument and again operating on modal categories and modal terms if God exists notice that he starts with a definition if he exists he is a necessary being that's what God would be now second of all he says it's possible that he exists premise one an atheist is not going to reject because everybody agrees that this is the definition this is the thing we're debating we're debating whether or not this kind of being exists so God by definition would be the thing that is unnecessary being okay so they're not going to reject premise one ask yourself this question how could they disprove premise two it's possible that God exists so in other words what they'd have to do is again they'd have to disprove God's actual existence in this world and in every other possible world good luck with that atheists so premise two seems to be right it's at least possible that God exists but if he exists in some possible world he exists there as a necessary being and as such we'd have to conclusion other words you get him into some world he comes in as this kind of being and remember this kind of being is the being that exists in every world so the conclusion is God exists necessarily in this world and that leads us now to where we started off at the beginning of this lecture you could simply just argue this way God possibly exists and possibility refers to the modal category right that he's the kind of being that sometimes shows up but remember if he shows up some of the times then he shows up as the kind of being that must be assuming God defined as a necessary being it's at least possible that he exists if it's at least possible that he exists he shows up in some world you know as a necessary being and therefore God exists necessarily well those are ontological arguments I'll leave it to you to what you think you should do with those whether or not you're persuaded by this let me just say this apologetically I have to give you these arguments I think they're really important philosophically let me caution you about trying to use these in evangelism probably not gonna work out that well for you so but nevertheless philosophically and apologetically they are important in the history of Christian thought so those are ontological arguments in the next lectures we'll look at some other arguments for God's existence