2018

[Sebastian Lopez]

>2018
>not being a theist, still tipping the fedora

youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68

[Kevin Hill]

>[premise 5]
>not [conclusion]

[Sebastian Rodriguez]

You're going to have a pretty rough time convincing any atheist of (1)

If people are interested in stuff like this, you should see philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/the-modal-ontological-argument/ for further reading.

[Daniel Bailey]

I don't get Premise three; how would God existing in SOME possible worlds prove that he existed in ALL?

[Mason Allen]

>God is omnipresent

[Jeremiah Reyes]

i dont agree with premise 2 as god is supposedly outside our plane of existence. changing worlds wont affect wether there can be a god beyond our worlds.

[Daniel James]

That... Still doesn't follow.

When trying to simply prove the existence of something, you can't go assuming properties of said thing that may or may not exist.

[Zachary Rogers]

Which god?

[Joshua Mitchell]

>What is the difference between invisible,untouchable being and non-existent at all?

[Logan Clark]

Because if an omnipresence is a possible characteristics for a God. Then an omnipresent God exists due to OP's pic.