Today we are introducing a new area of philosophy – philosophy of religion. We are starting this unit off with Anselm’s argument for God’s existence, while also considering objections to that argument.
—
“That’s a Neigh” David Goehring https://www.flickr.com/photos/carbonnyc/8757020626
All other images via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
—
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
http://www.squarespace.com/crashcourse
—
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashC…
Twitter – http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr – http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse
CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids
source
Anselm’s flaw for me is that he operates on the assumption that all things that are real are better than the imagined version. We’ve all experienced scenarios where this isn’t true. Example 1: Chasing a person you desire only to find that a relationship is hard work and not nearly as blissful as you imagined. Example 2: Imagining all the things you could buy when you win the lottery vs all the social and administrative stress that comes with a lottery win in reality.
Which god are we talking about here?
Can someone please explain to me what exactly was Kant's objection to Anselm's arguments? I couldn't quite comprehend 🙁
When contemplating God, try to do so without using concepts.
I swear to God that a thiest can totally be an athiest that knows the language of God is silence and the only creation happens as now becomes then.
I am sick and tired of those two old people clinking a glass in literally EVERY crash course, no matter what subject it is 4:00
I just got out of a discussion where it was claimed that atheism is based on personal incredulity, and thats somehow wrong because it lacks an ontological reflectiive or deductive process. I'm like ok….and? That brand of incredulity is just a weak form of preferential bias, derived by ones own experiences. But it just got weird when they said that prefernces have nothing to do with incredulity therefore I'm wrong, which became a difference without a distinction. Invoking ontology really made no sense in these arguments and incredulity is somehow bad for not being inherently ontological, despite all decisions having an inherent ontologocal process? As any might guess the conversation didn't move on from there amd devolved into insults and how atheism is an anti-intellectual position. Im still confused by it.
Illustration and description of topic is Good 👍.fast speaking makes me to skip it for other
There could be a god …. most likely if there is that god would not be as defined by any known religion. There could be a hell …. if there is a hell then most likely everyone reading this will be going there no matter what they believe.
"Kant stop, won't stop" 😆 wtf
Do we need proof that god exists as prerequisite of discussion in ontology?
WAY WAY WAY TOO FAST!
so person A and person B are talking about … God?
PSA: Crash Course entirely misrepresents arguments for God’s existence in this series. Definitely not a recommended resource for learning the purview of arguments for God’s existence.
If you want to gain an (accurate) understanding of philosophy of religion, particularly arguments for and against God’s existence, YouTube is a great and accessible resource: look up videos by William Lane Craig, CapturingChristianity, and InspiringPhilosophy.
Aliquid quo nihil maius cogitare possit.
Atheist over here..
does the parable of the garden apply to electricity and gravity as well?
I can think of a billion awesome things that don't exist that would be terrible if they existed.
I always watch this playlist of CC philosophy over and over again
. Ain't never bored me
There’s also the argument that the presuppositions of God believers is, well, God himself and everything else is built from Him, which is unjustified. But the presuppositions of a materialistic atheist’s law of nature is also unjustified, we just have to accept that some things are true and real so we can apply logic and reasoning to explain things. Therefore we could neither deny nor prove the existence of God with our methodology.
If something exists then something must exist. Unless it is not necessary for something to exist that something exists. If you exist then it seems to me that at least something exists by name you unless you can account for your own existence without reference to any other existence.
Do the Descartes argument
7:10 who else noticed the demon in the photograph? LOL
Their very long and confusing arguments of the god's existence are, for me, 'WTF are they saying' type of arguments
It is fascinating that up until now in this course, if you applied what people claimed to be science and what is pseudo-science, then evolutionism is pseudo-science. The pseudo-scientists are bombarded with information that would have disproved their theory–if they were looking to disprove it (as real science does). But, because they are looking to confirm their theory and trying to make evidence fit into their theory, they are as much pseudo-scientists as Popper said Freud was. Hank Green makes a comment that to be involved in philosophy related to God, you have to be willing to be an atheist. In converse then, someone who wants to remain in the field of philosophy should also be willing to be a theist. Many aren't. Yet, they aren't excluded from the field of philosophy or other sciences. But, then that impacts the outcome, because the very people who don't want to believe in a Creator as an alternative have been effectively eliminated from the conversation while those who want to believe their isn't a Creator have access to all the resources to support their alternative theory and anyone who introduces evidence to the contrary is taken out of the main stream or their evidence is denounced (like Mary Schweitzer's blood and soft tissue in dinosaur bones). That isn't science, at least according to Popper and what Carl Green claimed is still in practice today in science (when it really isn't, if someone isn't genuinely looking for the truth, willing to throw out their theory when new evidence contradicts it, and not just support what they want to believe–which you taught was labeled pseudo-science.)
Tell me your cup isn't real.
Counter argument: The argument "proofs" that there is a god, but not that it is the judeo christian one. The bible God is nowhere close to the greatest thing I can imagine. I mean, there are a lot of other Gods that are cooler, Thor, Odin, Hades, Amun-Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva and Amaterasu just to name a few. They all have cooler designs than just old white guy in a robe with a beard. Plus none of them were assholes who repeatedly got mad for no reason and nearly wiped out humanity, nor were they jealous bitches that condemned you to eternal damnation just because you didn't love them. Ergo, God is real according to Anselm, but that God is not Yahweh.
What God are we trying to prove? Obviously no God man has ever conjured up has not and cannot be proven therefore I a god.
Great video
my favourite philosipher didnt beleive in religion . Bertrand russell
I still don't have any answers.
anselm……… hhahahahahhahahahahah
Mock Him all you want, keep feeding your ego with pride and haughtiness… but as they say there's a time for everything… right now we are on earth, but a time will reach wen it will be decided whether you will spend your eternity in heaven or hell. And it's not that far… it's the moment you die… so keep up
my brain hurts
God, like your thinking, needs no justification.
This man is clearly insane, he thinks the moon is green cheese. Lol. It’s obviously made out of swiss
The problem with proving God's existence to others is that you can't. You can explain and persuade someone to believe or not, but you can only prove his existence to yourself. So go find out for yourselves. You won't know untill you try it.
Philosophy: The love for knowledge.
The Bible with the universe proves itself to be true.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Shared via Bible KJV Psalms 24:1 The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Shared via Bible KJV Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork
Shared via Bible KJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 🌏🌖☀️🌟🌠🎆🎇✨🎉🎊
Shared via Bible KJV
No freaking way this philosopher's Christian birth name is "John Wisdom"
All of the things u said are not the philosophy where said by philosophers about religion
I think Anselm screwed it up on Premise Three…
Premise 3 has yet to be proven
As soon as one accepts the notion of a source, then one has defined the existence of a creative process. As soon as one accepts the notion of reason, then one has defined a conscious source. God exists because of the man-made concepts of source and reason, whether or not such an entity really exists or existed.
As Almost all analogies inherit errors, in the case of gardener analogy has also have one which is-
Without a gardener, probability of growth of a plant is very high whereas in case of formation of this universe through big bang is not possible without any cause(the god) as through our eyes, we can observe there is not single process in this universe which happen without a prior cause explaining all the initial conditions, sometimes we feel something is occurring on its own because we don't have complete data or understanding.
And finally if someone say that rules inside the universe will not work outside of it or for it, then that is just a statement and not a valid argument how could you possibly know that rules governing the universe will not work outside of it when your study uses the concepts of the universe itself. Hope this opens some people's mind
Wait Santas not real!!!!?!?!?
To argue about the existence of god is illogical, pointless even. My understanding is that whether or not he/she does exist, the idea itself goes beyond our physical comprehension. Therefore the belief can never be known. The reason no one was ever able to debunk the idea is simply because the idea of god is more complex than the capacity of our own minds. Don’t live life as a dog would chasing his own tail, futile. You can only manage what you can control and what you cannot is.. simply beyond you.
How can john wisdom Compare the entire universe with a garden.
Moreover the universe doesn't seems like a tended garden
Bro your vids prove gods not real without even trying….. 🙄 Bruh we needa talk about advancing ourselves as a human race. Like we needa leave this planet and love each other and shite.
It's an interesting argument to assert that God is (one step better than ) the best thing one can possibly imagine. Every person on this planet can imagine a completely different 'best thing'. That would make God all best things and doesn't define God at all. It makes God a 'collection of best things' like the best ice cream flavor, or fastest car, or most perfect photo ever taken, etc. In other words, it's totally a meaningless descriptor.