You're viewing a single thread.
Let me see if I can save anyone else the trouble of clicking on that link...
The video is around 14 minutes long and I'd say about 95% of it is just psuedo intellectual/psuedo scientific jibberish designed to make the concept sound more impressive than it actually is and also to make the narrator sound considerably smarter than he actually is.
The message basically boils down to "god definitely exists because it just has to otherwise we wouldn't all still be here existing"
It's as good of a pointless argument as any other I suppose, but not exactly groundbreaking or in any way convincing.
The narrator uses a lot of overly clinical terminology and nonsense sentences that run in circles around each other to try and make his point sound very complicated and "scientific", but it basically still boils down to "god exists because I say so, and if you still don't believe it's because you're not smart enough to understand the concept of god"
🥱
OP might consider posting this kind of psuedo scientific click bait in a philosophy community instead next time.
🏆
While you may not agree with the argument, this was certainly a "groundbreaking" argument when it was made.
Using pure logic to make a coherent argument for the existence of God, Avicenna lived between 970 - 1037, it was definitely "new" when he made the argument.
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"
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.