The concept of god IS self-contradictory. How, for instance, do you square his supposed omniscience with our free will? How do you square is supposed omnipotence and omniscience with his supposed omnibenevolence? How is omnipotence even possible?
"God by definition" Can you give a definition of "God" for those of us who aren't clear on the concept? Without a definition of god your 7 steps make no sense.
If you like this tool's, erm, "logic"... just replace the word "god" with whatever you like - UFOs, Bigfoot, Flying Spaghetti Monster - and you've just proven them too.
Premise #1 is flawed: it is impossible to know the nature of an entity without having evidence. How do you know god has no parents? Simply because you define him as such? This is special pleading.
Premise #2 is flawed: an omnipotent and all powerful "god" would be able to destroy himself and therefore cease to exist.
Premise #4 is flawed: I can conceptualize and imagine many things that can never be true and/or real. A concept in and of itself cannot contradict itself, it simply is.
Why can God not come into existence? Isn't it possible that he never existed and that people made him up? That is when he came into existence, only in the minds of fallible humans though
WRONG! The concept of an almighty god is indeed self-contradictory. Could he make a mountain/planet/anything so massive that not even he could ever move it again? If he can't, he ain't almighty. If he can make it so, he ain't almighty either b/c he will not be able to move it. The concept of an almighty deity is a logical fallacy, aka BULLSHIT
My advice to the person in this video is : Don't become a lawyer, as you will must think that every self-consistent lie must be true by you own "logic".
I've just got to point out that the ontological argument is one of the stupidest things ever thought up. In fact, it disproves the existence of god because no divine creator could possibly be responsible for anyone so stupid as to repeat it seriously.
Ok, now prove to me that god exists......... can't do it can you? Because it is still a matter of FAITH! That same argument could be used to "prove" that I have two pink, gay unicorns sucking each other of under my bed. Fucking retard!
@Mitche23 thank you! because if you ever want to see a video about evolution these fucking day every one always mentions abrahamic religions, why?!! no one ever argues for Zues....
That is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. You can't just jump from unsupported assertion to unsupported assertion to illogical conclusion. FAIL!
Atheism is like an armored man who is open to opinions but logically evaluates before acceptance. Religion is a weak man that is ignorant to all opinions but his own.
Point 7 is your conclusion, based on point 6 alone, and an unstated axiom of modal logic that logical necessity implies existence. The argument is unsound, and so the conclusion cannot be deduced correctly, but even if it could, this argument is useless without a coherent and non-contradictory definition of the word "unlimited" used here to describe God. The classical ontological argument, by defining God as maximally having all qualities or even all positive qualities, is self-contradictory.
Point 6 is the first deduction made here, and comes from premises 3, 4, and 5. But since premise 3 is demonstrably false (see the statement "I am drinking Mountain Dew," for example), and premise 5 requires a rigorous definition of "unlimited" which avoids the pitfalls of a naive definition which still being specific enough to be at all meaningful. One does not have to demonstrate the invalidity of an argument to defeat: the soundness of an argument can also be question, as Kant did to refute it
Premise 4 is fine, no problems there. But premise 5 is simply unsupported, and on some definitions of the word "unlimited" is demonstrably false. For example, if by unlimited you mean omniscient and omnipotent in the naive sense, then the concept of God is self-contradictory, because such an entity both could change its' actions due to his omnipotence and could not change his actions because, being omniscient, it knows precisely what it will do, and doing anything else would contradict that.
In addition, the argument presented here for premise 2 is irrelevant, because a universe in which a God does not exist and, by your definition, never existed, does not contradict the definition assumed, because in such a universe God would never cease to exist; it simply would not exist at any time.
Premise 3 is a false dichotomy, because, again going by the attempts at modal logic, a statement can be only possibly true, and not necessarily true or false. For example, "My hair is brown."
Premises 1 and 2 are invalid because you have not demonstrated any link at all between something's existence and something's logical necessity. I understand that the modal logic you are using seems to have this as an axiom, but the axiom of necessity requires a statement to be a theorem (not just true, but proven) in order to get logical necessity from it. Thus, if this axiom is used to prove the statement, this argument is circular.
The premises are flawed in the following ways: There is a premise Zero, a definition of God which is here left unstated, and which is necessary for a logical proof. Based on the argument, this God is supposed to be an unlimited thing which can neither come into existence nor cease to exist. This is a poor definition, as the word "unlimited" needs to be rigorously defined in order for this to make sense, which causes problems in the argument later on.
this is just one variation of Baruch Spinoza's ethics. and when broken down, most philosophers believe he was actually an atheist. so congratulations, your an asshole!
You literally just created variations of Baruch Spinoza's Ethics. and it is still under debate as to whether or not he was an atheist or not. either way, your an asshole and a fraud. nice video though
Sweet Jesus Brown! This used tampon is serious, isn't he?!
I thought it would be a parody because this is an atheist's channel but, after seeing it, I think he was serious. I realize that trying to reason with a fundie is futile but, for the record, I would like to point out that several of his premises were nothing more than bold assertions with nothing to back them up. "The concept of god is not contradictory" Why?
The only story here is that a fundie schmuck was able to count to seven.
5. This is only the concept of one god that was invented a long time ago by rather nasty and primitive men that simply bathed in ignorance. I can theoretically say that any type of invented god does not contradict itself. Fail.
6. Since 5 was fail, 6 cannot be based on it's predecessor and is irrelevant.
7. Therefore, I could argue anything I can imagine exists. Prove me wrong.
Maybe you should fill that bookcase with some books that are less... um... useless. Read them too.
2. If a Unicorn exists then logically this Unicorn must exist. You still need some type of evidence to prove it existed in the first place.
3. Incorrect this existence of anything can be logically unnecessary when viewed on a cosmic scale and or logically possible.
4. I could not have said it better if I tried. The existence of a god is both possible and impossible, the simple fact is we do know / understand yet, which of these is correct and may never.
You shouldn't make fun of the disabled. This guy sounds like he has many disabilities and we should be helping him. Thought I have no idea to help someone in his predicament. I have of lost some IQ points watching this...hehehe
C'mon do you really expect me to believe in a man in the sky? Do you understand how primitive that sounds? God is just an explanation for what people of the time couldn't answer. Nothing more. If you want to see from an atheist point of view then look at another religion, you'd say it's moronic, and that's how we see all religions. Give me one good reason why another religion is stupid and yours isn't, and make sure it isn't something that could be used against you. Have fun moron.
I wish people would learn how to think outside of their own little sandbox. It's kind of pathetic when they present weak and flawed logic, thinking it will convert us.
Day 1 according to the bible: God created light and darkness and called them day and night. But he hadn't created the stars or anything else, so how could have light? He called it day and night, but there was no sun to make it "day". Explain that one.
I'm pretty sure you just paraphrased Anselm's original ontological argument, which is still wrong for the same reasons. Don't be a Kant! (ha! get it, he pronounces it 'cunt')
"Random Guy in Suit talks stupid shit and makes religious people look even more stupid and therefore makes been an Atheist even more logical than it already is, in 7 Simple Steps!"
The tired failed ontological argument, which is, basically, define god into existence using your own pre-established definitions, despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, using shallow wordplay. Semantic masturbation that doesn't establish or even posit a damn thing.
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
HURR DURR!!! I HAS COSTUME! I POES INFUNT OF FRIENDS BOOKSELFFF! I PLAES CLASSE MOOSIK IN BACKGREEND TO SEEM SMATR! dass y i can proof god exists hurr
It seems to be that this argument is based on foundational bias, the transitioning between step 4 and 5 is not logically sound. step 4 states that it would be self contradictory, yet it would not be, it would be merely false, no contradiction that i can think of exists, aside from in scripture and with the attributes of said God. this argument does not adress those contradictions and therefore the argument can be considered somewhat of a non-sequitor.
i... everything i've ever believed has evaporated with this proof. i guess there is a god, i never looked at it from a "god has to exist because otherwise his existence would be contradictory" angle. i feel stupid.
Your first statement is faulty: If it's logically impossible for God to exist, then we can be sure that God does not exist. However, even if it were logically possible for God to exist, we would still need convincing evidence that God exists before we can claim that s/he actually does.
@dwellerofrhymes considering the ridiculous things I've heard from theists there is really no way to tell satire from honest attempts at arguments any more. The title by the way is by neotropic9 not the original creator of the video. Look at some of the other titles of videos on his channel.
That was the most retarded display of circular reasoning I've ever heard. Actually come to think of it "circular" would be giving that argument to much credit, as it would imply that it actually went around the circle when in fact it went nowhere at all. All steps in the argument were essentially confined to a single point in space. I think we should refer to this as as en example of "stationary reasoning".
I hate to say this: I know that G-d exists, but I lost you at Step 2. Yes, "if G-d exists, etc." but you haven't yet proven that He exists. Yes, if He exists, He is limitless. Prove the fact, then the consequence (or whatever the right word is). Step 4 also needs elucidation. And you haven't proven Step 5. You merely state it. This method needs work, or it needs expansion, or I just don't get it. Sorry.
The guy thinks he's defining god but his definition could apply to existence itself. It doesn't prove that god exists, it proves the our physical natural world exists and that we are here to perceive it.
I mean, you might as well say the god is the field or potential for space-time to expand, since we know that the universe had a beginning but don't know what happened before that (as far as I know). There could be other space-time fabrics floating around in that massive field, there's nothing really about ours that makes us so special (as in negates other universes the theoretical possibility of existence). My point being, depending on how you define "the creator", it can never be disproven.
The idea of a god created in man's image is just absurd, however. It's just too blantantly obvious where such an idea could be conjoured. Unfortunatly, we don't know enough about genetics and the brain to disprove that once and for all - but god "evolves" to fit purpose, so the religious among you have nothing to worry about. "God" will never die.
4) "...then the concept of God is self-contradictory." NO: If the existence of God is logically impossible, then God existing_ would be self-contradictory. The concept of God exists, that doesn't mean God exists. 5) "The concept of God is not self-contradictory." Yeah, that may pack a punch when someone accepts the fallacious argument in step four. 6) "God is logically necessary." Not based off your previous steps, it isn't. 7) Therefore... You haven't proved anything.
What? 7 unconnected statements doesn't not make an argument for or against the existence of a god.
The best you can hope for is to use the logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.
Bottom line: There's no proof a god exists. Not even a tiny scrap of evidence. If a god were real, there'd be evidence for it. He'd even know to put evidence for skeptics.
Oh I'm convinced. For shame that I have spent my life enjoying myself without fear of divine punishment! For shame that I have spent my Sundays at home or in the park instead of in a hot stuffy church house!
the concept of god was to enslave peoples minds... Brilliant idea really, of course those that are made to believe are just a bunch of tools... literally.
That wasn't proof, that was using a complicated vocabulary to say I"M RIGHT AND IT"S IMPOSSIBLE THAT IM WRONG SO SUCK IT!!!!! Basically he has done nothing than jerk around in a suit for 3 minutes.
My problem with his argument (and granted, I've only thought about it for a few minutes) is in step 6: "The concept of God is not self-contradictory"
The fact is, most conceptions of God are indeed self-contradictory, and so far as I've seen, the only way to avoid self-contradiction is to make the concept of God to be too nebulous and indefinite to even work with.
Go to university and learn some logic. Really, do it. You're mixing up antecedents and consequents along the way, giving your argumentation no footing whatsoever. Let me give you an example of what you did:
If I lift a pen, then its height changes.
Therefore, if a pen changes its height, I must have lifted it.
That's, of course, *most* obviously wrong. I could still let a pen fall down. Also, reconsider what "necessary" means. Entailments are not your strength.
Of course! Thousands of years of real philosophers debate this issue and then you come along in your retard suit and solve the problem in SEVEN easy steps! God you are the dumbest person on youtube. Go get a haircut asshole. And quit saying "salutations" douchebag.
And if god by definition is limitless, then could he create a rock so big he couldn't lift it? Bring that question to your junior college intro-to-philosophy TA.
Enter a Luke Skywalker look alike contest while your at it.
@musselma - You're asking: "If G-d is limitless, can G-d create a limit for Himself?" The answer is no. Because the definition of limitless is never having a limit. Just like G-d can't die or be weak. Those would be limits. So being limitless means that yes, there are certain things G-d cannot do. If you can't get your head around that, it doesn't mean you've disproved the limitlessness of G-d. It means that like all other humans, you can't understand the nature of G-d.
@musselma no, God cannot create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it, because God is also by other definition omnipotence as well. But what is the purpose of the question?
And if god by definition is limitless, then could he create a rock so big he couldn't lift it? Bring that question to your junior college intro-to-philosophy TA.
@musselma yes he could creat that rock then he'd make him self stronger--ofomatheblackbelt 2 weeks ago
@ofomatheblackbelt --so he could not create a rock so big he couldn't lift....therefore he's limited...what are you an idiot or something?
Someone needs to create a new term...'atheist' implies that something actually exists, but you merely 'choose' not to believe in it.
But, since it Doesn't actually Exist...then you don't need to use that term to describe yourself. It's contradictory.
Rationalist works better. Choose Reality. Not superstitious fantasy, based on fear and ignorance. Your imaginary sky-being will be the destruction of this civilization, as it has throughout history, in all of its interpretations.
Wow this was retarded... I heard lots of words that were supposed to sound fancy and humbling, but in reality contradicted on another. I thought you were proving god DOES exist, but you just told us the existence of god is impossible.... right.....
I am a Christian myself, and even I find a flaw in these 7 steps, the logic has had a lot of thought put into it I will admit, but equally as much thought has not been put into the logic, if you get my meaning.
Firstly, God created the world in 6 days, rested on the 7th
Secondly, proving that God exists simply because if He didnt exist, He wouldnt, is a major flaw, and can logically be applied to any religion and/or cult in the world
The theory of your logic does seem to in some way prove the existence of a higher power, or higher being. But lacks the evidence to prove that God in this case, is the only higher power
Ontology: Ridiculously irrelevant to our survival and struggles in the present. An ontological argument has nothing to do with anything but inter-religious communications.
To counter your steps and arguments: Argument based on the illusion of free will caused by God's omniscience.
I am convinced. I am convinced that the human brain is the result of evolution by random mutation and natural selection. In this case the brain emits signals that make the organism live and utter sounds but that is where its function ends in this sad case.
1.- If god does not exist his existence is logically impossible.... erm, if it does not exist it SIMPLY does not exist, talking about the logic behind about the inverse of something when you are assuming it is just STUPID. ME 1-0 YOU
2.- The EXACTLY same shit as in number 1, just invert the variables and you got it. ME 2-0 YOU.
Unfortunately, none of this will convince a real atheist. I have given up on appologizing for my Catholic faith. They can think I am a wanker for it...that's the most they can think and I don't care.
Your argument is non sequitur. Point 4 insinuates that the logical nonexistance of god and the concept of god are necessarily connected. Why? Aren't they separate things?
Eg. The concept of gravity before Newton it is non compatible with the logical existence of gravity.
He starts by using "logically impossible" to mean the same thing as "impossible". But later on, "logically impossible" means the same thing as "inconceivable".
Wow thank you so much! I have been an atheist all my life up until this day, now you have explained it all for me so clear i have seen the light! God bless!
LOL I doubt this guy even understands what the hell he is saying. What a crock of shit lmao
This is a pseudo intellectual with a channel under the name of mikecampochiaro. Truly one of the most depressed and miserable looking xtians I have ever seen barely clinging by their fingernails to sanity...
lol, this guy is brilliant. here i was following science, arguing for evolution explaining how it works and how we can observe it. i've been paying attention to studies in self replicating rna strands and new genes that evolved in lab conditions and here comes the genius to show me i was all wrong. why trust evidence and science when you can just use this method to believe anything?
Let me give you a example of what I mean. God can not be present where sin exist, God is in all places at all times. This is a problem for your final conclusion.
God is love, love is not jealous, God is a jealous God. Can you see where I am going with this? You must define God in a way which can not be at odds with itself. I don't own a bible and I don't study logic, but what you present here is far from meeting my need for clarity. Peace to you.
False dichotomies and baseless assumptions much? Yeah, I thought so.
Okay, let me pretend that your "logic" is sound.
You've proved a god exists or possibly exists based upon a lot of assumed characteristics you just made up out of the top of your head. Well, which god exists? We've got quite a few.
You haven't even explained why we know there is only one god and not a whole pantheon.
I'm afraid I serve a summons to neotropic9; there's a class action suit against you due to this video. It apparently caused many viewers to facepalm so hard as to cause physical injury. You have been served!
i love satire
ddduuurrrppp 1 month ago in playlist More videos from neotropic9
Anyone else notice that these videos made to disprove atheism just reinforce it?
happyinoldtrafford 1 month ago
The concept of god IS self-contradictory. How, for instance, do you square his supposed omniscience with our free will? How do you square is supposed omnipotence and omniscience with his supposed omnibenevolence? How is omnipotence even possible?
JohannMint 1 month ago
I hope your trolling I really do, there is no way someone would be that dumb
kesakhan 3 months ago
"God by definition" Can you give a definition of "God" for those of us who aren't clear on the concept? Without a definition of god your 7 steps make no sense.
emagneticboy97 4 months ago
Haha I laughed.
Olemaiden 4 months ago
If you like this tool's, erm, "logic"... just replace the word "god" with whatever you like - UFOs, Bigfoot, Flying Spaghetti Monster - and you've just proven them too.
TheAstrobleme 5 months ago
Premise #1 is flawed: it is impossible to know the nature of an entity without having evidence. How do you know god has no parents? Simply because you define him as such? This is special pleading.
Premise #2 is flawed: an omnipotent and all powerful "god" would be able to destroy himself and therefore cease to exist.
Premise #4 is flawed: I can conceptualize and imagine many things that can never be true and/or real. A concept in and of itself cannot contradict itself, it simply is.
icebalm 6 months ago
Why can God not come into existence? Isn't it possible that he never existed and that people made him up? That is when he came into existence, only in the minds of fallible humans though
dk2853 6 months ago
It's painful watching stupid people trying to think.
Hyperplaterine 6 months ago 3
Please be trolling us people can't be this stupid. You make Bill O'Reilly look intelligent.
aceoffail 6 months ago
Is he dumb or is he worse than that suit
dodbell 6 months ago
WRONG! The concept of an almighty god is indeed self-contradictory. Could he make a mountain/planet/anything so massive that not even he could ever move it again? If he can't, he ain't almighty. If he can make it so, he ain't almighty either b/c he will not be able to move it. The concept of an almighty deity is a logical fallacy, aka BULLSHIT
macmarine 6 months ago
1. Circular logic.
2. Same as above.
3. Same as above.
4.
ok this is a joke.. this has to be a parody.. i dont know, people are pretty stupid but wow..
DaFleegsta 7 months ago
These are the religious ramblings of someone hopelessly clinging to their precious beliefs.
keez1994 7 months ago
First argument fail, second argument fail.
In fact the entire thing is epic fail!
LOL!
bobster451 7 months ago
This is alot of bd
JOSHandSTEVEtv 7 months ago
My advice to the person in this video is : Don't become a lawyer, as you will must think that every self-consistent lie must be true by you own "logic".
xkoenigseggx 7 months ago
Disprove atheism??? You mean disprove that some people don't believe in gods? Can you get any more stupid & ignorant?
Strangerinasland 8 months ago
in the bible i beleive its actually six days
QuestionYourThoughts 8 months ago 3
@QuestionYourThoughts haha how has this not been thumbed more?
xkoenigseggx 7 months ago
I've just got to point out that the ontological argument is one of the stupidest things ever thought up. In fact, it disproves the existence of god because no divine creator could possibly be responsible for anyone so stupid as to repeat it seriously.
2times333 8 months ago 3
Ok, now prove to me that god exists......... can't do it can you? Because it is still a matter of FAITH! That same argument could be used to "prove" that I have two pink, gay unicorns sucking each other of under my bed. Fucking retard!
QSNalle 8 months ago
ZEUS LIVES !!!!
Mitche23 9 months ago 2
@Mitche23 thank you! because if you ever want to see a video about evolution these fucking day every one always mentions abrahamic religions, why?!! no one ever argues for Zues....
dechav1 8 months ago
That is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. You can't just jump from unsupported assertion to unsupported assertion to illogical conclusion. FAIL!
Pinage 9 months ago 2
Your hairstyle alone disproves the existence of god
NoWitnessesNoRegrets 10 months ago 29
He's in a suit! It must be true!
animalcrosser591 10 months ago
Dude looks like he's gonna cry blood.
helllspell 10 months ago
epic fail
henrikstaaf 10 months ago
Atheism is like an armored man who is open to opinions but logically evaluates before acceptance. Religion is a weak man that is ignorant to all opinions but his own.
FreemanLambda 11 months ago 12
@FreemanLambda
A person who has only religion is weak but a man that has the power of the living God can do all thing by the power of Jesus Christ.
Jesus makes the weak strong and lifts up the broken hearted.
Accept Jesus and reject religion
SuperTruthlover 6 months ago
Point 7 is your conclusion, based on point 6 alone, and an unstated axiom of modal logic that logical necessity implies existence. The argument is unsound, and so the conclusion cannot be deduced correctly, but even if it could, this argument is useless without a coherent and non-contradictory definition of the word "unlimited" used here to describe God. The classical ontological argument, by defining God as maximally having all qualities or even all positive qualities, is self-contradictory.
rpitenor 11 months ago
Point 6 is the first deduction made here, and comes from premises 3, 4, and 5. But since premise 3 is demonstrably false (see the statement "I am drinking Mountain Dew," for example), and premise 5 requires a rigorous definition of "unlimited" which avoids the pitfalls of a naive definition which still being specific enough to be at all meaningful. One does not have to demonstrate the invalidity of an argument to defeat: the soundness of an argument can also be question, as Kant did to refute it
rpitenor 11 months ago
Premise 4 is fine, no problems there. But premise 5 is simply unsupported, and on some definitions of the word "unlimited" is demonstrably false. For example, if by unlimited you mean omniscient and omnipotent in the naive sense, then the concept of God is self-contradictory, because such an entity both could change its' actions due to his omnipotence and could not change his actions because, being omniscient, it knows precisely what it will do, and doing anything else would contradict that.
rpitenor 11 months ago
In addition, the argument presented here for premise 2 is irrelevant, because a universe in which a God does not exist and, by your definition, never existed, does not contradict the definition assumed, because in such a universe God would never cease to exist; it simply would not exist at any time.
Premise 3 is a false dichotomy, because, again going by the attempts at modal logic, a statement can be only possibly true, and not necessarily true or false. For example, "My hair is brown."
rpitenor 11 months ago
Premises 1 and 2 are invalid because you have not demonstrated any link at all between something's existence and something's logical necessity. I understand that the modal logic you are using seems to have this as an axiom, but the axiom of necessity requires a statement to be a theorem (not just true, but proven) in order to get logical necessity from it. Thus, if this axiom is used to prove the statement, this argument is circular.
rpitenor 11 months ago
The premises are flawed in the following ways: There is a premise Zero, a definition of God which is here left unstated, and which is necessary for a logical proof. Based on the argument, this God is supposed to be an unlimited thing which can neither come into existence nor cease to exist. This is a poor definition, as the word "unlimited" needs to be rigorously defined in order for this to make sense, which causes problems in the argument later on.
rpitenor 11 months ago
this is just one variation of Baruch Spinoza's ethics. and when broken down, most philosophers believe he was actually an atheist. so congratulations, your an asshole!
likespinningplanets 11 months ago
You literally just created variations of Baruch Spinoza's Ethics. and it is still under debate as to whether or not he was an atheist or not. either way, your an asshole and a fraud. nice video though
likespinningplanets 11 months ago
I almost went brain dead from watching this retarded ass, illogical, completely false video.
likespinningplanets 11 months ago
Sweet Jesus Brown! This used tampon is serious, isn't he?!
I thought it would be a parody because this is an atheist's channel but, after seeing it, I think he was serious. I realize that trying to reason with a fundie is futile but, for the record, I would like to point out that several of his premises were nothing more than bold assertions with nothing to back them up. "The concept of god is not contradictory" Why?
The only story here is that a fundie schmuck was able to count to seven.
jimbrown257 11 months ago 3
Um, actually, the concept of 'god' is self-contradictory.
Try again, big boy. Your god-logic will fail every time.
Luftbahnfahrer 11 months ago
Luke, I am your father
URTemplar 1 year ago
-Continued.
5. This is only the concept of one god that was invented a long time ago by rather nasty and primitive men that simply bathed in ignorance. I can theoretically say that any type of invented god does not contradict itself. Fail.
6. Since 5 was fail, 6 cannot be based on it's predecessor and is irrelevant.
7. Therefore, I could argue anything I can imagine exists. Prove me wrong.
Maybe you should fill that bookcase with some books that are less... um... useless. Read them too.
MafferDragonhandEyed 1 year ago
1. Exactly no god, no need to create god.
2. If a Unicorn exists then logically this Unicorn must exist. You still need some type of evidence to prove it existed in the first place.
3. Incorrect this existence of anything can be logically unnecessary when viewed on a cosmic scale and or logically possible.
4. I could not have said it better if I tried. The existence of a god is both possible and impossible, the simple fact is we do know / understand yet, which of these is correct and may never.
MafferDragonhandEyed 1 year ago
I just came here to laugh actually..
D5932 1 year ago
You shouldn't make fun of the disabled. This guy sounds like he has many disabilities and we should be helping him. Thought I have no idea to help someone in his predicament. I have of lost some IQ points watching this...hehehe
Th3Z0han37 1 year ago
I don't understand a thing you said, but I'm glad you proved God and killed all the atheism.
ShockOfYahweh 1 year ago
Also, more on topic, you can't prove a point with a sequence of self-supporting statements.
MalexH2 1 year ago
Maybe if I rent a suit and stand in front of a bookshelf, people will think I'm smart even if my argument is retarded.
MalexH2 1 year ago
C'mon do you really expect me to believe in a man in the sky? Do you understand how primitive that sounds? God is just an explanation for what people of the time couldn't answer. Nothing more. If you want to see from an atheist point of view then look at another religion, you'd say it's moronic, and that's how we see all religions. Give me one good reason why another religion is stupid and yours isn't, and make sure it isn't something that could be used against you. Have fun moron.
alchemywulf 1 year ago
if you beleive god exists this is just because you were told to
jam63112 1 year ago
I wish people would learn how to think outside of their own little sandbox. It's kind of pathetic when they present weak and flawed logic, thinking it will convert us.
mettek 1 year ago
Day 1 according to the bible: God created light and darkness and called them day and night. But he hadn't created the stars or anything else, so how could have light? He called it day and night, but there was no sun to make it "day". Explain that one.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
LOL no offence but if this isn´t a joke I´d be very surprised :)
altah23 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure you just paraphrased Anselm's original ontological argument, which is still wrong for the same reasons. Don't be a Kant! (ha! get it, he pronounces it 'cunt')
thomgray 1 year ago
god is like a doughnut hole.
sum1unxpected 1 year ago
LMAO........... So wait.. Let me get this straight. You're proof of the existence of your imaginary friend is that you've discovered a word puzzle?
Uhh.. Yeah.. Wow... I guess NOW I can ignore the fact that he's not real and believe in him anyway.
After all, you've argued me into overlooking the fact that there is no tangible evidence of any kind.
I'll immediately stop dong anything that feels good and feel overwhelming guilt for my normal human nature.
Or not...
morpheusxnyc 1 year ago
This video should be called...
"Random Guy in Suit talks stupid shit and makes religious people look even more stupid and therefore makes been an Atheist even more logical than it already is, in 7 Simple Steps!"
TheAtheistAussie 1 year ago
Hahahaha
TheRealJohnSkinny 1 year ago
i think its a satire vid?
lukerogers 1 year ago
Is this a joke?
thismortalsoul 1 year ago
The tired failed ontological argument, which is, basically, define god into existence using your own pre-established definitions, despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, using shallow wordplay. Semantic masturbation that doesn't establish or even posit a damn thing.
BiffWhitebread13 1 year ago
Rod Blagojevich WISHES he had this hair.
Do I spy a Thomas Harris novel top left? 8P
This seems like subtle, absurd comedy. I do agree though, Azathoth and all the rest of those dudes are definitely real. No doubt.
When I hear the word "ontolgical", my bullshit alarm goes off and I roll my eyes. Is that wrong? Let's see some miracles!
I'm wondering about all the bad ratings. Didn't we all chuckle?
OptimisticCynic715 1 year ago
If it is possible to have a concept of something that is impossible then your fourth and subsequent assertions are false.
.
Right now I am conceiving of something so impossible I cannot begin to describe it in writing. Your proof has failed.
.
This sounds like the Ontological Argument in frilly undies. Anyone else get that feeling?
Noisegator 1 year ago
..and evolution is a myth because there is no way you are a product of millions of years of evolutionary process...
soyfeliz1312 1 year ago
Nice collection of knowledge behind you, I frequently reference HANNIBAL in my papers.
gregispremium 1 year ago
Is there someone who looks after this person.
hughman1000 1 year ago
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 a person or thing of supreme value
4 a powerful ruler
auroradamien 1 year ago
HURR DURR!!! I HAS COSTUME! I POES INFUNT OF FRIENDS BOOKSELFFF! I PLAES CLASSE MOOSIK IN BACKGREEND TO SEEM SMATR! dass y i can proof god exists hurr
It makes perfect sense now doesn't it?
Killicon93 1 year ago
Salutations! Going from point 4 to point 5 made me laugh. Good stuff.
japlha 1 year ago
Replace 'God' with 'Shiva', 'Zeus', or 'Flying Spaghetti Monster', and it 'proves' the same nonsensical premise.
justmyopinionbro 1 year ago
It seems to be that this argument is based on foundational bias, the transitioning between step 4 and 5 is not logically sound. step 4 states that it would be self contradictory, yet it would not be, it would be merely false, no contradiction that i can think of exists, aside from in scripture and with the attributes of said God. this argument does not adress those contradictions and therefore the argument can be considered somewhat of a non-sequitor.
daemonowner 1 year ago
i... everything i've ever believed has evaporated with this proof. i guess there is a god, i never looked at it from a "god has to exist because otherwise his existence would be contradictory" angle. i feel stupid.
swearinz 1 year ago
Your first statement is faulty: If it's logically impossible for God to exist, then we can be sure that God does not exist. However, even if it were logically possible for God to exist, we would still need convincing evidence that God exists before we can claim that s/he actually does.
Mrmoc7 1 year ago
I'm assuming this is a joke. Right?
jemidai 1 year ago 2
@jemidai
I think it was. I'm not sure myself. You know how these youtube sarcasms go....
Mrmoc7 1 year ago
It's satire, and if the silly title for the video doesn't tell you that right off, you're a bit thick.
dwellerofrhymes 1 year ago 2
@dwellerofrhymes considering the ridiculous things I've heard from theists there is really no way to tell satire from honest attempts at arguments any more. The title by the way is by neotropic9 not the original creator of the video. Look at some of the other titles of videos on his channel.
sjs334 1 year ago
@sjs334 Oh shit, my bad, I thought it was neotropic9 in the video. :-P Thanks for telling me.
dwellerofrhymes 1 year ago
That was the most retarded display of circular reasoning I've ever heard. Actually come to think of it "circular" would be giving that argument to much credit, as it would imply that it actually went around the circle when in fact it went nowhere at all. All steps in the argument were essentially confined to a single point in space. I think we should refer to this as as en example of "stationary reasoning".
sjs334 1 year ago
@sjs334 "I think we should refer to this as as en example of 'stationary reasoning'."
XD
OptimisticCynic715 1 year ago
I hate to say this: I know that G-d exists, but I lost you at Step 2. Yes, "if G-d exists, etc." but you haven't yet proven that He exists. Yes, if He exists, He is limitless. Prove the fact, then the consequence (or whatever the right word is). Step 4 also needs elucidation. And you haven't proven Step 5. You merely state it. This method needs work, or it needs expansion, or I just don't get it. Sorry.
andyandymax 1 year ago
Oops, Marty McFly just disproved atheism. I'm convinced!
WasMilkABadChoice 1 year ago
I hope this is satire, nobody can be this dumb.
TheMidnightWolf1 1 year ago
pathetic, but funny
f1garcia 2 years ago
Is this satire, if not it, it's damn convincing.
HybridD91 2 years ago
lol
"salutations"
this guys retarded.
KittyRokher 2 years ago
That bunch of crap was it?
JeanLouie1106 2 years ago
Never trust a man with a combover.
rumboxfilms 2 years ago
moron
KnowTheAnswer 2 years ago
The guy thinks he's defining god but his definition could apply to existence itself. It doesn't prove that god exists, it proves the our physical natural world exists and that we are here to perceive it.
xSilverPhinx 2 years ago
I mean, you might as well say the god is the field or potential for space-time to expand, since we know that the universe had a beginning but don't know what happened before that (as far as I know). There could be other space-time fabrics floating around in that massive field, there's nothing really about ours that makes us so special (as in negates other universes the theoretical possibility of existence). My point being, depending on how you define "the creator", it can never be disproven.
xSilverPhinx 2 years ago
The idea of a god created in man's image is just absurd, however. It's just too blantantly obvious where such an idea could be conjoured. Unfortunatly, we don't know enough about genetics and the brain to disprove that once and for all - but god "evolves" to fit purpose, so the religious among you have nothing to worry about. "God" will never die.
xSilverPhinx 2 years ago
step one: what?
step two: circular logic
step three: um, no? imagination?
step four: why not?
step five: no, is not.
step six: to weak minded individuals
step seven: Not at all.
RobotPuppy 2 years ago
Wow, such studity caused of ignorance
Takua38000 2 years ago
What a moron!
nealithh 2 years ago
4) "...then the concept of God is self-contradictory." NO: If the existence of God is logically impossible, then God existing_ would be self-contradictory. The concept of God exists, that doesn't mean God exists. 5) "The concept of God is not self-contradictory." Yeah, that may pack a punch when someone accepts the fallacious argument in step four. 6) "God is logically necessary." Not based off your previous steps, it isn't. 7) Therefore... You haven't proved anything.
PantsOnTheGround 2 years ago
What? 7 unconnected statements doesn't not make an argument for or against the existence of a god.
The best you can hope for is to use the logical fallacy: argument from ignorance.
Bottom line: There's no proof a god exists. Not even a tiny scrap of evidence. If a god were real, there'd be evidence for it. He'd even know to put evidence for skeptics.
Try again.
dgrhm08 2 years ago
The concept of God is self contradictory?
But it isn't therefore god exists . .
I think you might have to elaborate on that for me . . .
ThMrksman 2 years ago
Oh I'm convinced. For shame that I have spent my life enjoying myself without fear of divine punishment! For shame that I have spent my Sundays at home or in the park instead of in a hot stuffy church house!
Hahaha!
stingernick 2 years ago
oh yea... and this guy in this video is a total moron.
baronblunt 2 years ago
the concept of god was to enslave peoples minds... Brilliant idea really, of course those that are made to believe are just a bunch of tools... literally.
baronblunt 2 years ago
That wasn't proof, that was using a complicated vocabulary to say I"M RIGHT AND IT"S IMPOSSIBLE THAT IM WRONG SO SUCK IT!!!!! Basically he has done nothing than jerk around in a suit for 3 minutes.
MrEnrique223 2 years ago
i believe him just cuz of the hair
CaIgaryFIamesFan 2 years ago
Asreferolejkle cannot, by definition, not exists. Ergo, asreferolejkle exists.
kissfan7 2 years ago
My problem with his argument (and granted, I've only thought about it for a few minutes) is in step 6: "The concept of God is not self-contradictory"
The fact is, most conceptions of God are indeed self-contradictory, and so far as I've seen, the only way to avoid self-contradiction is to make the concept of God to be too nebulous and indefinite to even work with.
Theophage 2 years ago 2
*watches 2 minutes in*
PFFFFT Hahahahahahaha *falls over*
wut?
LtZerge 2 years ago
I really, really hope that was satire.
wteva99 2 years ago 2
"since god exists, then god must exist" is basically his argument
bigpoppa897 2 years ago
all of the points he makes are reliant on god existing in the first place.
also his points are from various definitions, probably out of an out-dated dictionary
Silverstrike021 2 years ago
Go to university and learn some logic. Really, do it. You're mixing up antecedents and consequents along the way, giving your argumentation no footing whatsoever. Let me give you an example of what you did:
If I lift a pen, then its height changes.
Therefore, if a pen changes its height, I must have lifted it.
That's, of course, *most* obviously wrong. I could still let a pen fall down. Also, reconsider what "necessary" means. Entailments are not your strength.
XHeiko 2 years ago 15
Congratulations. You have all wasted your lives.
TD9001 2 years ago
Of course! Thousands of years of real philosophers debate this issue and then you come along in your retard suit and solve the problem in SEVEN easy steps! God you are the dumbest person on youtube. Go get a haircut asshole. And quit saying "salutations" douchebag.
And if god by definition is limitless, then could he create a rock so big he couldn't lift it? Bring that question to your junior college intro-to-philosophy TA.
Enter a Luke Skywalker look alike contest while your at it.
musselma 2 years ago 28
This has been flagged as spam show
Owned, owned, and owned. Good show musselma!
zapo147 2 years ago
@musselma - You're asking: "If G-d is limitless, can G-d create a limit for Himself?" The answer is no. Because the definition of limitless is never having a limit. Just like G-d can't die or be weak. Those would be limits. So being limitless means that yes, there are certain things G-d cannot do. If you can't get your head around that, it doesn't mean you've disproved the limitlessness of G-d. It means that like all other humans, you can't understand the nature of G-d.
andyandymax 1 year ago
@musselma no, God cannot create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it, because God is also by other definition omnipotence as well. But what is the purpose of the question?
RaubeeTM 1 year ago
@RaubeeTM If God cannot make a rock so big he couldn't lift it, then he is limited. There's something he cannot do.
pointychicken 1 year ago
@musselma yes he could creat that rock then he'd make him self stronger
ofomatheblackbelt 1 year ago
And if god by definition is limitless, then could he create a rock so big he couldn't lift it? Bring that question to your junior college intro-to-philosophy TA.
@musselma yes he could creat that rock then he'd make him self stronger--ofomatheblackbelt 2 weeks ago
@ofomatheblackbelt --so he could not create a rock so big he couldn't lift....therefore he's limited...what are you an idiot or something?
musselma 1 year ago
@musselma He never said it was his own argument. In fact he credited someone else. Watch again.
LexPhilogus 11 months ago
Someone needs to create a new term...'atheist' implies that something actually exists, but you merely 'choose' not to believe in it.
But, since it Doesn't actually Exist...then you don't need to use that term to describe yourself. It's contradictory.
Rationalist works better. Choose Reality. Not superstitious fantasy, based on fear and ignorance. Your imaginary sky-being will be the destruction of this civilization, as it has throughout history, in all of its interpretations.
^^X^^
batman4oz 2 years ago
You could fill a fleet of short buses with that amount of stupidity.
stuffisgd 2 years ago 2
I bet he works as a telephone sanitizer..
RasPesher 2 years ago
thats really funny i was just listening to the bbc radio drama the other day
michaeleid811 2 years ago
Wow this was retarded... I heard lots of words that were supposed to sound fancy and humbling, but in reality contradicted on another. I thought you were proving god DOES exist, but you just told us the existence of god is impossible.... right.....
push911forme 2 years ago
I am a Christian myself, and even I find a flaw in these 7 steps, the logic has had a lot of thought put into it I will admit, but equally as much thought has not been put into the logic, if you get my meaning.
Firstly, God created the world in 6 days, rested on the 7th
Secondly, proving that God exists simply because if He didnt exist, He wouldnt, is a major flaw, and can logically be applied to any religion and/or cult in the world
eighty8th 2 years ago
The theory of your logic does seem to in some way prove the existence of a higher power, or higher being. But lacks the evidence to prove that God in this case, is the only higher power
eighty8th 2 years ago
wow that just proved a whole lot of nothing
deadringeracl 2 years ago
I bet Crocodile Dundee could do that hypnotizing aboriginal" trick on this guy, like he did on the bull in his first movie.
canaanav 2 years ago
lol, i laughed at this comment so much I had to tell you so.
TritoneMcgee 2 years ago
Cheers.
canaanav 2 years ago
"If God does not exist then he must be logically impossible"
Incompleteness Theorem, there are things that are true but not provable.
Its hard to fail at advanced logic, but you did.
IsometricCube 2 years ago 2
God By Definition : An Imaginary Friend.
JustinBringit 2 years ago
FUCKING BULLSHIT
frogman1623 2 years ago
Ontology: Ridiculously irrelevant to our survival and struggles in the present. An ontological argument has nothing to do with anything but inter-religious communications.
To counter your steps and arguments: Argument based on the illusion of free will caused by God's omniscience.
SenariXarn 2 years ago
Please define "God" at the beginning of the video. Fucking, seriously, God is a loose term.
TheMortalOne 2 years ago
I don't think he was serious, but he is a douche'.
BigfootIsMyPal 2 years ago
I am convinced. I am convinced that the human brain is the result of evolution by random mutation and natural selection. In this case the brain emits signals that make the organism live and utter sounds but that is where its function ends in this sad case.
drandersw 2 years ago
I'm a christain, but this is ridiculoius.
kiltcult3170 2 years ago
Therfore you are a dumb fuck.
kiltcult3170 2 years ago
Does this guy have any arguments that aren't circular in shape?
quinn2469 2 years ago
Wow, way to set up a false dichotomy.
metalorg 2 years ago
IMMUNE! WOW! NORMAN MALCOM! WOOOW! ARGUMENT! W0000T!!! 7 STEPS = 7 DAYS!!! WOOOW!!!
1.- If god does not exist his existence is logically impossible.... erm, if it does not exist it SIMPLY does not exist, talking about the logic behind about the inverse of something when you are assuming it is just STUPID. ME 1-0 YOU
2.- The EXACTLY same shit as in number 1, just invert the variables and you got it. ME 2-0 YOU.
ShikiGamiKun 2 years ago
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
outkast353 2 years ago
Literally crying with laughter. What a tool.
pilatzke2007 2 years ago
I hope this guy isn't serious, how pathetic.
adamredwine 2 years ago
Ahahahaha! That was hilarious!
Raynor35 2 years ago
i have no idea what the 7 steps means.
chinh101 2 years ago
Unfortunately, none of this will convince a real atheist. I have given up on appologizing for my Catholic faith. They can think I am a wanker for it...that's the most they can think and I don't care.
Raffzeee 3 years ago
Your argument is non sequitur. Point 4 insinuates that the logical nonexistance of god and the concept of god are necessarily connected. Why? Aren't they separate things?
Eg. The concept of gravity before Newton it is non compatible with the logical existence of gravity.
CatharticWeek 3 years ago
Is this satire?
arcanics1971 3 years ago 2
This is even weak for an Ontological argument (Step 5?). Wow...I hate to say this, but he could take lessons from the Banana guy.
sevlevboss 3 years ago
He starts by using "logically impossible" to mean the same thing as "impossible". But later on, "logically impossible" means the same thing as "inconceivable".
Then of course #5 is a bald assertion.
Heathenfidel 3 years ago
Wow thank you so much! I have been an atheist all my life up until this day, now you have explained it all for me so clear i have seen the light! God bless!
LOL I doubt this guy even understands what the hell he is saying. What a crock of shit lmao
ElroyHarvey 3 years ago
Here I thought there'd be something interesting in this video. Silly me!
If I exist, I must have come to existence. Logically, nothing can just appear. As I exist, I must logically be exempt from logic. Hence I am God.
Denamic 3 years ago
This is a pseudo intellectual with a channel under the name of mikecampochiaro. Truly one of the most depressed and miserable looking xtians I have ever seen barely clinging by their fingernails to sanity...
Skavar4000 3 years ago
lol, this guy is brilliant. here i was following science, arguing for evolution explaining how it works and how we can observe it. i've been paying attention to studies in self replicating rna strands and new genes that evolved in lab conditions and here comes the genius to show me i was all wrong. why trust evidence and science when you can just use this method to believe anything?
greycloud24 3 years ago
lolwut?
RichoRosai 3 years ago
If the concept of God is self contradicting then the existence of God is impossible... How are you defining the concept of God?
NLPNVC 3 years ago
Let me give you a example of what I mean. God can not be present where sin exist, God is in all places at all times. This is a problem for your final conclusion.
God is love, love is not jealous, God is a jealous God. Can you see where I am going with this? You must define God in a way which can not be at odds with itself. I don't own a bible and I don't study logic, but what you present here is far from meeting my need for clarity. Peace to you.
NLPNVC 3 years ago
False dichotomies and baseless assumptions much? Yeah, I thought so.
Okay, let me pretend that your "logic" is sound.
You've proved a god exists or possibly exists based upon a lot of assumed characteristics you just made up out of the top of your head. Well, which god exists? We've got quite a few.
You haven't even explained why we know there is only one god and not a whole pantheon.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
WTF?
educatedAtheist 3 years ago
I'm afraid I serve a summons to neotropic9; there's a class action suit against you due to this video. It apparently caused many viewers to facepalm so hard as to cause physical injury. You have been served!
Seriously where do you find this stuff?
subach 3 years ago
Is this guy serious? People aren't convinced by such arguments surely? I wonder if this is the reason he believes. I highly doubt it.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
This guy needs to take some medicine.
FranzDuckVideos 3 years ago 2
"If God cease to exist he would be limited"
Like being bound to eternal existence is not a limit. This is the good old stonelifting paradoxon.
lovasip 3 years ago
where the hell did you get step 5?
futurevegan 3 years ago
wait.... so 1 leads to 2 which leads to 3 that leads to 4 and leads to 5 so leads to 6 will leads to 7. That's what he's saying... right?
Well, then all 7 steps will have to pass.
Problem... he failed at step 1. LOL!
freedom0f5peech 3 years ago