Ok, the atheist granted that the existence of God is possible. But what happens when the theist is intellectually honest (yes, they are among us) and grants that God may not exist or that is possible the universe was originated from quantum fluctuations? How can God not exist necessarily in the "atheist modal argument" if he was supposed to exist necessarily in the modal ontological argument? There can't be two truths.
Really interesting. The classics arguments, even we accept them or not, are very interesting efforts for God. They are more effective than the banana argument 😅
The question about the existence of God does not call for material evidence, but call for evidence of a consciousness in universe. At the moment there is evidence for consciousness in universe, us. So God is a valid possibility... not just that... maybe it is the only possibility.
@@danielpaulson8838 The problem here is our inability to measure consciousness, and this is impossible to solve with our current knowledge. For example, we know everything about the biology of plants, yet we are unable to determine if they have any first-person experiences.
A - Prove the existence of God B - Prove your own consciousness A - Look I have a brain B - I just see electrons and neutrons moving around, where is your consciousness? A - Come on, there is an experience behind these physical processes!!! B - Now apply this to universe...
@@BehindDesign Dude, or whatever, if you remember creation because you were conscious of it and you are now the universal consciousness, then make a video and post it. The world needs more Gaia channel baloney. 😂😂😂
This analysis was almost aggressively bad. The ontological argument is a blatant fallacy of question begging, and you categorically failed to point this fact out. You can't just declare by rote fiat that "God is a necessary being." That literally just assumes the very conclusion you're trying to prove. You even ignored the counter ontological argument, which says that if God's NON-existence is possible, then God's non-existence is NECESSARY. This is absolutely absurd for the same reason, and it's the same logic used to prove God by the theist. My friend, you're supposed to be a PhD philosopher. How in the world did you fail to recognize such obvious fallacies? What exactly am I supposed to think about your academic credentials when you failed to recognize a freshman-level blundering of argumentation? Why are you lending credence to this garbage?
The ontological argument seems to be very natural and trivial....Great !!
Great!
Ok, the atheist granted that the existence of God is possible. But what happens when the theist is intellectually honest (yes, they are among us) and grants that God may not exist or that is possible the universe was originated from quantum fluctuations? How can God not exist necessarily in the "atheist modal argument" if he was supposed to exist necessarily in the modal ontological argument? There can't be two truths.
Really interesting. The classics arguments, even we accept them or not, are very interesting efforts for God. They are more effective than the banana argument 😅
LOL! 🍌 = 🗑️
My standard response to the ontological argument is simple: Show me a centaur.
How is that a response?
@@suntzu7727 how is it not?
@@yetanotherentity You can do better than that. How are centaurs related to the argument?
@@suntzu7727 i don't feel any particular need to do better, as it's rather patently obvious.
@@yetanotherentity So, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Good.
The question about the existence of God does not call for material evidence, but call for evidence of a consciousness in universe. At the moment there is evidence for consciousness in universe, us. So God is a valid possibility... not just that... maybe it is the only possibility.
I'm going to call you on a claim. What evidence do you have that the universe is conscious?
@@danielpaulson8838 The problem here is our inability to measure consciousness, and this is impossible to solve with our current knowledge. For example, we know everything about the biology of plants, yet we are unable to determine if they have any first-person experiences.
@@BehindDesign prove anything you said. Any of it.
Don’t just continue with logical fallacies. Education and thinking skills are available.
@@danielpaulson8838 Prove that Martin Pistorius is conscious! Well, he is indeed conscious now, but measuring it was initially impossible.
@@BehindDesign I don’t need to prove anything to you. This is about the dumbest conversation I have ever had.
What are you even here for?
A - Prove the existence of God
B - Prove your own consciousness
A - Look I have a brain
B - I just see electrons and neutrons moving around, where is your consciousness?
A - Come on, there is an experience behind these physical processes!!!
B - Now apply this to universe...
The universe allows consciousness to emerge. Consciousness does not create the universe.
@@danielpaulson8838 Your assumption that a physical process can create consciousness implies that the universe is conscious.
@@BehindDesign Then me emerging from the universe implies it is me.
Stop the logical fallacy. Or, learn to process thought.
@@danielpaulson8838 Well, in the same way that your mass comes from universe, your consciousness too. Why not?
@@BehindDesign
Dude, or whatever, if you remember creation because you were conscious of it and you are now the universal consciousness, then make a video and post it. The world needs more Gaia channel baloney.
😂😂😂
more important, what us ULTIMATE BS, especially in a capitalistic system
This analysis was almost aggressively bad. The ontological argument is a blatant fallacy of question begging, and you categorically failed to point this fact out. You can't just declare by rote fiat that "God is a necessary being." That literally just assumes the very conclusion you're trying to prove. You even ignored the counter ontological argument, which says that if God's NON-existence is possible, then God's non-existence is NECESSARY. This is absolutely absurd for the same reason, and it's the same logic used to prove God by the theist.
My friend, you're supposed to be a PhD philosopher. How in the world did you fail to recognize such obvious fallacies? What exactly am I supposed to think about your academic credentials when you failed to recognize a freshman-level blundering of argumentation? Why are you lending credence to this garbage?
You need to properly define the term, 'proof.' You have none.
pleading with nonsense