• @MrJameGumb
    link
    English
    47 months ago

    Oh I have no doubt that this philosophical breakthrough was considered earth shattering 1000 years ago! OPs question however was if it is the “best argument for God’s existence”. I say it is not.

    Being conveyed to me today in 2024 in this extremely pretentious video it sounds almost condescending and doesn’t actually explain anything. The convoluted and contrived way the narrator delivers the information makes it sound like a grift to trick people into not asking questions.

    As I said before, the entire essence of what was said in this video is “god is so far above you that you will never actually understand why anything happens so shut up and keep worshipping just in case” Which really is the same message that every religious leader has been pushing for as long as religion has been around, even if it’s dressed up in the context of “scientific discovery”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      I think you missed the point. The argument wasn’t precisely new when he made it, what was new was his use of Aristatilian logic to “prove” the existence of God. The proof requires that God be singular thus the god of the Islamic world (also the Jewish). The tri-part God of the Christian religions is therefore a corruption.

      The video doesn’t really do a good job of covering the importance of his argument in the history of philosophy.

      As an atheist, I don’t find the argument itself very compelling. The historical context is quite interesting.