Anselm And The Argument For God: Crash Course Philosophy #9

Anselm And The Argument For God: Crash Course Philosophy #9
[ne_semantic_video video_id=”FmTsS5xFA6k” title=”Anselm And The Argument For God: Crash Course Philosophy #9″ upload_time=”2016-04-04T21:00:00.000Z” description=”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,” duration=”PT9M13S”]
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
All other images via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0:

Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios:

Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook –
Twitter –
Tumblr –
Support CrashCourse on Patreon:

CC Kids:


  • 2pogiyou says:

    Who said God isnt detectable??? Just becuz God doesnt desire anything in ur life for u to notice him doesnt mean he dpoesnt exists screw u peasant

  • Rohini Nanda says:

    Do you think God is there, the way religions have presented God make it all the more difficult to believe in his existence, would love to hear you on this

  • Nivesh Proag says:

    Boy was Anselm stupid…

  • Sweta Gupta says:

    The parable was ‘THE BURN’.

  • Cesar Alvarado says:

    The Devil is the _worst_ being we could ever possibly imagine. It would be worst if the devil was real. It would be worst still if he was more powerful than God. And even worst if there were an infinite number of devils. Therefore the devil s real. He is more powerful than God. And there’s an infinite number of them. Logic.

  • Florencio Molinas says:

    The gardener parable made me remember carl’s sagans story about an invisible, intangible, etc dragon on his garage. It’s exactly the same principle.

  • Gustavo Mazzei says:

    Would be great if the guy makes a pause between sentences when he talks!

  • Avery Amedia says:

    So, peanut butter, covered in more peanut butter, covered in peanut butter ice cream, Smuthered in peanut butter chips, intertwined with all peanut butter ice cream,with a side of peanut butter. I may have a peanut butter addiction.

  • john anik says:

    If there’s no God, There’s no reason to be an ATHEIST………….HMMMMNNN

  • GubbaNubNubDooRahKah says:

    I disagree with Hank at 2:03

    Well, I don’t disagree that philosophy of religion is not the study of the Bible, but you *can* use what’s written in a book to prove the truth of the book. Okay, not prove definitively, but it can make belief more justified and, arguably more importantly, also has the power to disprove.

    For example, different religions and religious texts often make assertions or describe natural or other phenomena and their causes which can be proven or disproven. If such a text teaches that the Earth is flat, the text cannot possibly be completely factual because we know what the shape of the Earth is, even to quite a degree of accuracy. If any fact stated in such a text can be disproven through experimentation or direct observation, then the text is essentially disproven, at the very least imperfect and far from inerrant. This method doesn’t work, however, for exceptions to the natural rule. If it was an act of God, then it can’t simply be recreated in a lab. Without evidence regarding the specific instance that such an event happened, there isn’t much to go on if you want belief to be justified (according to the philosopher’s definition of justified, anyway).

    Also there is prophecy. Prophecy is risky because it makes a prediction, hopefully a specific one. A prophecy so vague it could only be true or for that matter so self-evident that it hardly stands to be called a prediction is worthless, epistimologically speaking. However, if a text makes a series of specific predictions that were recorded before their fulfillment, the odds that their successful rate of prediction would remain 100% decreases with each prophecy, and the riskier they are or the more foresight they would require, the lower the odds get that they’ll all be true. I also have to point out at this point the possibility of disproven prophecies of days past not becoming canonized into scripture or even being removed from it for the very fact that such a prophecy would stand to disprove a text, and thus such a text could not be absolutely true. For this reason, the older the manuscripts we have that can confirm such predictions have remained entirely consistent over time can better prove that prophecies have not been altered or removed, and thus increase justification of belief in them and such a text as a whole. There’s still the possibility of prophecies not being canonized because they were wrong, but if they were never made canon then I guess they don’t really count anyway. Now the only problem left is that a prophecy can only have its truth value analyzed *after* the time it’s supposed to come to pass. Any prophecy set in the future is indeterminate. If a prophecy is not very specific in the time it’s to occur, at least in reference to other events, then this opens the door to prophecies being called indeterminate indefinitely by believers, and the more time passes the less skeptics are willing to consider it valid (and they already likely don’t). However, by using historical and scriptural context (and insight) one can determine as best they can what the prophecy meant originally at the moment of its conception, as that must be what they’re measured against. Otherwise, prophecies could be reinterpreted again and again and would be completely pointless and a useless tool for ascertaining truth.
    Again, as with assertions about reality, if a prediction is objectively wrong, that also disproves definitively the infallibility of a text.

    If a religious text does not violate known, proven scientific fact (outside divine intervention) and in fact agrees with science at least in how things happen if not why (unless it’s provable), makes many risky/specific and unusal predictions that have proven to be only right over and over again, hopefully has a few indeterminate prophecies so it doesn’t seem like it revolves entirely around the past, and the book is known to be consistent over vast amounts of time on top of the fact that it’s totally consistent with itself (that’s the easy part) would give justification to belief in the infallibility and absolute truth of such a book, right? At the very least. After all, simply conceding to some degree of justification for a belief is not conceding to much at all, especially after meeting such high standards. And that’s all based on using what’s written inside the text to determine if it’s true! Not standalone, no, so I suppose I also concede that one needs outside evidence, but using a text to prove its validity should be kinda a no-brainer actually. That’s primarily the part I disagree with. It sounds like splitting hairs at this point, but it’s a key distinction. After all, how can you really look at the truth of something without studying it to some extent? I’m not outright asserting the truth of the Bible either, I’m just saying that this isn’t all just “because the Bible says so,” reasoning here.

    Some people may even be able to think of other examples of how scriptures can relate to reality in a way that makes belief more justified that also carries the power to disprove too. Each time it can be disproven but isn’t (so long as it hasn’t already been disproven), justification for such a belief increases, as with inductive reasoning

  • Lynn Maalouf says:

    I can imagine a lot of things that would be better if they didn’t exist in reality… A world full of Anselms, for example?

  • David Parker says:

    In my classroom a theist said the anselm’s argument my partner said:then an alien can exist if i can imagine one the theist after saying the necessary being part my partner replied : ok it only applys to god

  • Lord of Ghosts says:

    Thank you to two people
    the unbiased presenter for presenting without defending
    and the comments section for not turning into an all out war

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *