alvin plantinga's moto ontological argument is probably the best argument for the existence of God it uses the laws of modal logic and acts similar to a mathematical proof this is probably why a lot of people have a hard time understanding it and simply dismiss it there are many great videos on the internet right now they give a great analysis of the ontological argument yet many people ignore these videos because they find them too confusing in this video I'm going to try to articulate the argument in an easy way to understand because if you're a theist then it's important to understand this argument because when understood correctly it is impossible to refute if you don't believe in a God then it would probably be a good idea to understand it so you don't appear foolish by misunderstanding it to start here's how the modal ontological argument works premise 1 it is possible that God exists premise 2 if it is possible that God exists then God exists in some possible worlds premise 3 if God exists in some possible worlds then God exists in all possible worlds premise for if God exists in all possible worlds then God exists in the actual world and premise 5 if God exists in the actual world then God exists now if you're like me when you first heard this you're probably asking will wait that doesn't make any sense the logic of some of those premises doesn't add up that's okay because we're going to look at it closer so you can understand it first you should understand that when philosophers say a possible world they mean a hypothetical situation it is generally a way for philosophers to test an idea to see if it's logical by asking could it exist in a possible world like ours however the one thing people seem to misunderstand the most in the argument is how God is defined some atheists say we're just imagining God into existence like this clever bunch so here's my proof that a unicorn exists and I actually wrote this passage so let's define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn and exists by the above definition such a being must exist therefore a unicorn exists okay so that's the ontological larger it's very hard to believe that there are people that use that uh-huh but there are the fact that the idea is there that so I can believe that I'm grande polka-dotted apparently it's why yes apparently so okay wait isn't it when I am clean with purple polka dots uh-huh and since I have stated that therefore it must be true so you can imagine it yeah okay here's the problem they are falling into the typical error of misunderstanding how God is defined and because of their ignorance they are concluding that the argument doesn't work so we need to look at how God is actually defined and how it differs from how you would define a unicorn now there are three ways to define a being or an entity in the ontological argument an entity can either be impossible which means it exists in no possible worlds an example would be a square circle an entity can be contingent which means it exists in some possible worlds like a unicorn a unicorn could exist in some possible worlds but not in others last an entity can be necessary which means it has to exist in all possible worlds now what do we mean when we say something necessarily has to exist in all possible worlds well examples of necessary entities are numbers absolute truths and shape definitions for example take the number two no one created it it just exists necessarily it can't not exist take a shape definition for another example such as a square must have four sides a square cannot exist with only three sides because that would be logically incoherent in any possible world so a necessary entity is something that cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world therefore necessarily it has to exist in all possible worlds so when we talk of God in this argument we are saying that if he exists he would have to be a necessary entity because God is defined as a maximally great being and a maximally great being is defined as a being that possesses all qualities that are better to have which we define as great making properties other examples are love wisdom and power a maximally great being would also have to have these properties to their maximal extent he would also possess no qualities that are bad to have such as imperfection or corruption these are defined as lesser making properties but most of all he would have to possess the great making property of necessity because being necessary is a property they would be better to have now looking back to the terms we defined earlier if God was contingent he would it be maximally great because he would only exist in some worlds it would be less than great than if he existed in all worlds now the idea of God being necessary is consistent with Scripture Colossians 1:16 says for by him all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible whether Thrones or dominions or principalities or powers all things were created through him and for him so when skeptics try to debunk this argument by going through the premise with a unicorn in place of God they are trying to define God in the same way you would define a contingent being whereas when we use God in the ontological argument we are saying God is more than just contingent he is maximally great and anything maximally great must be a necessary entity or it wouldn't be maximally great so understanding how God is defined in the argument let's go through the premises again premise 1 it is possible that God a maximally great and necessary being exists premise 2 if it is possible that a maximally great being exists then a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds premise 3 if a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds then a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds remember if a maximally great being exists then he has to be a necessary entity because a contingent being cannot be maximally great premise four if a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds then I maximally great being exists in the actual world because the actual world is counted as one of the puffs worlds premise 5 if a maxima great being exists in the actual world then I maximally great being exists and the conclusion is a maximally great being exists so does it feel convincing well not really but when it boils down it's not a matter of how you feel what matters is what is logically coherent so hopefully now that you know how God is defined in the argument you can understand how the ontological argument works are there objections to the argument yes but only in premise one since the other premises just follow modal logic in our own controversial the only way for skeptics to the bunk this argument is to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist the most common way this is tried is with the omnipotence paradox it is most commonly presented like this can God create a stone so heavy that even he can't move if God cannot create the stone then he is not all-powerful but if God can create the stone and can't move it then he is still not all-powerful therefore the idea of God is impossible however this attempt is debunked in the question itself as a logical absurdity asking can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy even he can't move implies that omnipotence is defined as able to do the logically impossible which is not consistent with the definition of omnipotence no one who believes in omnipotent God believes God can do the logically impossible the Bible has verses that stated it's impossible for God to do certain things asking the question is like asking kenan omnipotent being create a square was 3 sides or can an omnipotent being tell you the shape of purple or can I'll nip it and being totin 11 it's just gibberish all these questions are logically incoherent it cannot exist in any possible world so you could not expect them to be answered now you might be asking well why can't God do the logically impossible he is all-powerful so I should be able to do anything well you need to understand that logic derives from order without order nothing makes sense including existence so you cannot use logical absurdities to disprove the existence of God because if logical absurdities were in a world along with God then essentially nothing in that world actually exist so once again you cannot use logical absurdity to disprove the existence of God especially in modal logic if one side uses logic to prove the existence of God the other side cannot step outside of logic to disprove God that'd be like a football game where one team gets to use machetes this is why the omnipotence paradox is not accepted in academia as a valid argument there are of course other objections to the argument however I'm not going to address them now because this video is intended to be an introduction to the ontological argument and I feel I've already overloaded your head with too much information I cover the most popular objections to the argument in another video which you can check out later if this video still has you confused I would recommend watching it again the ontological argument is not an argument that some people can fully grasp right away so please reflect on the idea before you dismiss it it took me a little bit of reflecting before I fully understood it and I wouldn't expect anything different from someone else in the information section below I've provided links to other great videos on the ontological argument I hope you'll check them out and continue to research and study this amazing argument