Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@CrossExamined says : Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱https://cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl>> <<@TheSecondInfinity says : “This argument is valid” he says about several undefined and unsupported terms followed by 3 nonsequiters and then the same brain dead conclusion restated three times>> <<@WatchMyVideoCovidTruthNoBiolab says : 3:00 "If it is possible God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds" Excuse me, what? I'm a Christian and this makes NO sense. God by definition is not bound to a "world" he is over the ENTIRE FREAKING UNIVERSE! But WHY would "possibility" make God MUST exist? A much better argument is the evidence of the soul. YOU are not a ROBOT. As advanced as A.I. is, even copying itself and FITTING the definition of life, IT'S NOT ALIVE!!! Why? Because is has no soul, no mind will emotions desires, wants, morals. Just follows code. So how could the SOUL "evolve" without God? Much better than this>> <<@TheChurchSplit says : Copious amount of cope in the comments…>> <<@alexz31cujo31 says : The atheists here are having a blast. I mean i can see why. I've never understood the logic behind this argument. I would like the ask those who supposed themselves maximally intelligent as to how they can know their opinions to be true?What grounds you to really?>> <<@HuxtableK says : Ontological Argument for God, dumbed down: If I define God as being the thing that existed to create everything, then God clearly exists to have created everything. Ergo, God exists. Because I defined him as existing.>> <<@richardstevenwalz4968 says : You seem to have a PhD in a fictional subject from a pretend university. Modal logic is purest fiction, a maximally non-existent god must also exist in this world!!>> <<@try_learn_do says : Once any premise is unsubstantiated, the argument is invalid. Since premise 1 is unproven claim, the rest of the premises are meaningless. That's how it works and makes the rest of it just word salad. Come on back when you have proven that it is possible for any deity to exist.>> <<@eklektikTubb says : If "necessary being" means "being that must exist", then there is a huge hidden problem. The meaning of that first premise is actually "It is POSSIBLE that no God is IMPOSSIBLE". Why would anyone accept such complicated confusing premise? Let alone an atheist? Closed minded atheists may automatically reject that premise immediately, open minded atheists may suggest that reality with no God might be possible and lukewarm atheists may say "who knows?"... but none of them is forced to actually accept that premise. There is no reason to do so.>> <<@rickpapineau5939 says : What absolute nonsense... God exists because Dawkins is intellectually honest by acknowledging that proving a negative is impossible? Your "doctorate" isn't worth the paper it's printed upon. Just admit you're doing this to try to become rich.>> <<@Gawdssakes says : A DR from a degree mill ? An ARGUMENT is NOT proof of existence ! At best they provide a possibility but the same argument could be used for unicorns or fairy's>> <<@kennethleeds8503 says : I challenge this guy to identify a single person in the history of the world who was convinced by this argument. I sincerely doubt such a person exists. Normal rational humans simply won't buy this turkey of an argument. The mere fact that this argument is taught in apologetics classes illustrates the intellectual bankruptcy of that so-called discipline.>> <<@jasonroelle5261 says : So humans might be the maximal great being. Thid argument does not get you yo an intelligent entity that created a universe. You have not provided evidence himans created, or designed any universe.>> <<@WhiteScorpio2 says : "Is it possible that a necessary and a maximally great being exists?" No. "it's one of the most effective of all the arguments for the existence of God" Effective at what? At making people laugh at you?>> <<@keithwhitehead4897 says : At the VERY best you show a god exists (You don't, not even close), however you do NOT come anywhere close to showing that god must be the one you believe in, history has had many thousands of gods and all can be cough cough "proven" with your argument. So Epic failure.>> <<@marknieuweboer8099 says : 1:15 "Perfect in power, omniscient, perfect in knowledge and omnibenevolent - perfect in love" Everywhere you use "omnibenevolent - perfect in love" I'll replace it with "omnimalevolent - perfect in hate". The argument will remain exactly as valid. Obviously your necessary entity cannot be both at the same time. So the Ontological Argument concludes two necessary entiries who are perfect in power. That's logically impossible. The Ontological Argument proves that this abrahamistic concept of god refutes itself.>> <<@EhvulAtheist says : Cool, I'm a professor In Marvelism with a PHD in X-Menism. Hello there, doctor. Favorite arguments? Not evidence? Not proof? Why are you wasting my time? Ontological???? Cool, I can imagine Living Tribunal existing. Since I can do that, he must exist in some reality. Since he exists in some reality, he exists in all realities. TADDAAAAAAA! Living Tribunal proven and thus the Marvel Multiverse with all it's inhabitants. I bet you mourn you can no longer force and torture ppeople into believing your BS. Skippy, prove your gawd is truly necessary, not just that YOU need it to exist, or else you'll cry And your tri omni gawd doesn't work in the world as we see it. This definition in accordance to reality demonstrates, your deity does not exist. Oh Beavis, you people rewally have to stop to parade Dawkins out, as if we atheists all care for what the guy says. And you follow up with a load of BS. Do you know the difference between a possibility and a probability? Listening to your rambelings, you don't. Or you forget, as soon as it's convinient, since there is no such thing as an honest apologist.>> <<@pwoody9416 says : As Professor Plink noted today, 2/8/26, a necessary maximally great 11toe can be defined into existence just as your maximally great god. I hope you didn’t pay too much for your “degree”. If you are going to quote Dawkins, why not start with the quote where he tells the newly minted theological degree holding student that his degree is absolutely worthless>> <<@fred_derf says : The Ontological Argument breaks down to "if god exists then god exists" -- and that's one of your best arguments? BTW: You can't argue something into existence, got any good evidence for the existence of god? No? Didn't think so...>> <<@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj says : Translation "God has to be real or I'd have to face that I wasted my life getting a PhD in Harry Potter ">> <<@andydee1304 says : If you're saying God is an abstract concept -- and that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying -- then I'm not an atheist because I know for a fact that the abstract concept of God exists. However, if you're saying God is not an abstract concept and is an actual being, you need to explain HOW God exists.>> <<@kregorovillupo3625 says : Defining god into existence by defining it necessary is the weakest attempt to essentially say that you are right because you say so. This thing isn't convincing but for whomever start convinced and has no moral issues on agreeing with any silly argument that just ends with "therefore god exists". And here's the reversed ontological argument: 1- It is possible that god exists (granted for the sake of argument, even if it shouldn't because is it possible? I don't know. You have to demonstrate that). 2. If it is possible that god exists, than it is possible for god to exists in some possible worlds. 3- If it is possible that god exists in some possible worlds, than it is possible there are some worlds where he doesn't exists. 4- A maximal greter being would exists in all worlds. (we are assuming for the sake of argument and as the argument does that existence is a positive attribute, even if one should demonstrate that) conclusion 1: A maximal greater being does not exists. conclusion 2: If god is a maximal greater being than god doesn't exists.>> <<@dodo1opps says : Opinion...opinion...opinion...>> <<@williambeckett6336 says : The greatest irony? Early christians adopted the Greek philosophical method of arguing. Then, when they gained governmental power they BANNED philosophers so only THEY would know and retain the method. Flash forward through 1700 years of informed conmen talking down to cultivated morons. ---But now their go-to method is DOA and they cannot/do not grasp this: The days of "Philosophizing" their god into remotely plausible existence and/or their cult out of trouble is DEAD. They find themselves in the ear of "Facts, data and evidence or we do not believe you." And they do not how to deal with this era. And its not going away. Even as their cult declines and itself does go away.>> <<@gowdsake7103 says : Top 6 arguments that never prove a god And zero EVIDENCE for anything that demonstrates a god Strange as it seems arguments are not proof>> <<@DRKrust492 says : Ontological???? HAHAHAHA. Thanks. This gave me a great laugh.>> <<@LindeeLove says : Isn't maximally great subjective?>> <<@HDMFanatic says : Random agnostic atheist, who was for some reason recommended this video, here to simply point out an issue with not only this ontological argument, but many other arguments used by apologists: it only leads to deism. Even if you were to convince me that the origins of the universe and life required some supernatural force, you'd have a long road to go to convince me of your particular conception of the Abrahamic God. You'd need to convince me that a global flood occured, that there was a great exodus from Egypt by the Israelites, that there was a virgin birth, that the child born of that virgin birth is both the Son of God and God himself simultaneously, that Jesus literally brought Lazarus back from the dead, that Jesus died on the cross and rose _bodily_ from the dead 3 days later, and so on so forth. Edit: I also wouldn't say it's logically possible for a maximally great being to exist because two of the qualifiers are contradictory. You can't have a being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. A truly omnipotent being would be just as capable of malevolence as it is of benevolence. Saying that God _can_ be malevolent but chooses not to be doesn't help your case either, because being omnibenevolent removes choice from the equation.>> <<@JustAshleeKeyton says : I Believe in God, but I get stuck at premise 2.>> <<@Counter-Apologetics says : Terrible argument. Refuted on my channel>> <<@edoardo7311 says : I am absolutely not an atheist, but I am not persuaded by this argument. I dont get particularly the passage from God exists in some possible world THEN He does exist in ALL possible worlds. How do we get logically to this conclusion? If He is necessary then He cannot be a possibility in some worlds but by premise in all worlds. Can someone explain?>> <<@mickqQ says : No… god is not like a giant pizza God is like a unicorn, exists only in the mind, not in reality.>> <<@danielminer446 says : If the definition of God is: ///‘God’ is a maximally great being; i.e. a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and metaphysically necessary (i.e. cannot fail to exist)./// how is the first premise valid? If a being that cannot, not exist be only possible?>> <<@outhousephilosophies3992 says : First premise is flawed , is it possible for a triple omni god to exist , and have a need to create? No if he’s got needs he’s not perfect then>> <<@erinwaddell2880 says : The fact he said God PROBABLY doesn’t exist should have us ask ourselves, should I take a chance and throw my life away assuming that God does not exist and miss out on eternity with him? Or…. He PROBABLY does exist and I give my life to him and not take a chance on a possibility? Considering if you believe in God you know he has a better plan for your life than you do considering he had this plan from the beginning of creation. Are you going to jump out of a plane thinking my parachute will probably open?? You need to know for sure and if you are not too sure then play it safe and stay in the plane. When you discover God and you learn his ways and see how he is the very definition of love but far deeper than you and I can imagine, you’ll realize you are not missing out on anything in life once you give them up, those that are sinful of course. He gives life and begins a new work in you something wonderful. This life has nothing to offer and Is deceiving and fleeing from us. The world and all it has was not meant to last but we were and we are. We will live in eternity either way life does not stop. We either burn in hell or dwell with God in his glory forever. Don’t do anything based off of a probably or maybe or possibly or kinda sorta when it comes to your life. Your life is precious and you only get one shot… please be careful 🙏🏼>> <<@314god-pispeaksjesusislord says : What this argument actually does is prove that our intuitions about God are valid, and that's not a little deal because it's diametrically opposed to the atheist claim to prove a negative in the absolute. From the ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT we can say that even without evidence I have justification for my intuition, and then bring in the evidence.>> <<@FreeThoughtProductions says : Arguments are NOT EVIDENCE>> <<@Dhorpatan says : I dont know what's more amazing. That Stratton is talking about Richard Dawkins in 2022, or that every-time I hear a Theist mention Richard Dawkins, they never refer to him as Dr. Richard Dawkins.>> <<@hasone1848 says : If Christians could demonstrate god to be real, then they wouldn't need all these bad arguments. Oh wait if God was real then they would be out of a job.>> <<@rationalphobia5533 says : Amazing, thank you for this argument, I love it.>> <<@An_Imaginary_Carpenter says : Thou shalt not kill a large pizza in one sitting.>> <<@dragonwhisperer1571 says : This is either, 1, badly explained, or, 2, badly reasoned. What is a 'possible world'? If God can exist in some 'possible worlds', how does that make Him exist in all 'possible worlds'? I don't follow the logic, and I think this argument does a disservice to apologists, especially when they don't explain it well. I already believe in God but this argument makes me not want to, if we're looking at it from the atheist perspective>> <<@akoskormendi9711 says : Premise 3 is not how logic works. It's a complete nonsequitor. It's like saying if I am a student in one school, I am a student in all schools. The ontological argument has always been one of the most ridiculous arguments for God, it is literally defining God into existance. You can't define things into existance.>> <<@ba-ba1193 says : He lost me at Nr 4. "If God exist in some possible worlds, then he exists in all possible worlds" . Can someone clarify this please?>> <<@ryeclansen7371 says : Why call this maximally great being god? Could be a quantum field or even a pizza (I'd rather have pizza). Why would this maximally great being be the god of the bible? The god of the bible seems rather heinous and awful at times, smites innocent people on an impetuous whim, decides that young women who don't bleed on their wedding night be stoned, etc. Certainly doesn't appear to be maximally great to me. I can imagine lots of better deities.>> <<@michelangelope830 says : I claim I am God, the eternal entity that the kalam cosmological argument talks about, the argument that has never been debunked simply because atheists reject logic as all kind of fallacies if the conclusion is that God exists and the horrible personal religious god doesn’t. If everything needed to be created or caused nothing would exist. I exist therefore God exists. I know I am God because nothing can be created from nothing, therefore everthing comes from God being God, the same miraculous nature or substance transforming in Infinite Time. Evolution can not last forever. The son evolves from the parents, that evolve from the grandparents, so on so forth, and the process can not last infinitely because in an infinite past the present moment would never be reached. I am trying to end religion with the fierce opposition and censorship of atheists. It is unbelievable, a miracle, an act of God.>> <<@lancedooley7558 says : When we all die we will know the truth. It will be known and those people who didn't believe will be replaying the gospel that people shared while they burn. I hope everyone comes to Jesus.>> <<@robertlewis9132 says : These dingbats spend so much time doing what a real god would do on its own....convince us it exists. Nut cases.>> <<@sherlockhomeless7138 says : I don't understand this. I feel like I should be able to understand it, because I'm a logical thinker. But why does God exist in some possible worlds if it's possible He exists? I don't understand premise 2 and the rest then. (I'm a christian by the way - trying to learn more about apologetics).>> <<@johnford9863 says : First, the fact that grown men can be this silly is amazing. Just because something can't be proven to be impossible doesn't automatically mean it exists. That's a ridiculous notion All this is is Special pleading>>