My new video about atheism

[teo123]

One of the most popular videos on my YouTube channel is my video about atheism in Latin. So, I thought a great way to reach more people is to repost it with English comments: https://youtu.be/AZOo5lgi6lI
What do you think about it? I honestly think hardly anybody has researched that topic as much as I did, and that I wasted a lot of time over the years to it that could be spent more productively. Me doing research about it probably isn't stopping anybody believing in God and doing unproductive or counter-productive things because of that.

A few things in my video are, I think, original. I don't think anybody before suggested that the first premise of the Ontological Argument is, in fact, a subtle equivocation fallacy. I also don't think anybody before stated the obvious fact that evolution of brain disproves the idea that evil is caused by free will. The argument that souls appear to contradict quantum mechanics (that I brought up at the end of the video) isn't often raised, but I think it's a very good one.

[Red]

A few things in my video are, I think, original. I don't think anybody before suggested that the first premise of the Ontological Argument is, in fact, a subtle equivocation fallacy.

Yes it has.
https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/fi ... evised.pdf
(this was written in 2018)

Pretty much everything of significance has been done or thought of before. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make an effort to discover new things (although in your case I make an exception) but don't expect to find anything particularly groundbreaking.

Also there are so many people out there that have been researching and discussing this subject for longer than you've been born. The topics of atheism and God have been discussed for thousands of years, you are not going to contribute something earth-shattering.

[teo123]

Yes it has.

Well, it is interesting that we came up with the same idea independently.
Did somebody also come with the idea what the core premise of the argument from degrees contradicts the Third Law of Thermodynamics? Like I have said in my video:

Another argument called ontological argument is the Thomas Aquinas'es argument about the degrees of properties. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree. Some people are powerful, therefore there supposedly must be an object that is absolutely powerful, and that's God. Some people are good, therefore there must be an object which is absolutely good, and that's God. But let's apply that logic to something else. Some things are cold, therefore, there must be an object which is absolutely cold. And, of course, there being an object that's absolutely cold would contradict the third law of thermodynamics. See the problem with that argument? Richard Dawkins suggested that Pascal was joking when formulating Pascal's Wager, and I dare suggest Aquinas was joking when formulating that argument. Aquinas was, as well as being a philosopher, he was also a comedian.

although in your case I make an exception

What do you mean?

don't expect to find anything particularly groundbreaking

Well, I do not. But maybe I come up with some argument which will convince somebody, or, better say, a phrasing of that argument which is more convincing. I think people who try to contradict the Anselm's Ontological Argument with the Omnipotence Paradox generally have the same idea.

[teo123]

@brimstoneSalad, I am interested, what do you think about my idea, which I mentioned in the video, that the core premise of the Argument from Degrees contradicts the Third Law of Thermodynamics?