PokeVideoPlayer v23.9-app.js-020924_
0143ab93_videojs8_1563605_YT_2d24ba15 licensed under gpl3-or-later
ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #cbaea3 (color 1)
Video Format : (720p) openh264 ( https://github.com/cisco/openh264) mp4a.40.2 | 44100Hz
Audio Format: 140 ( High )
PokeEncryptID: 844687205316554f156e99e3640f2d1910092cfa65897afe3f10788bbe5038725cf6aa792543614739a51fedb5da7ded
Proxy : eu-proxy.poketube.fun - refresh the page to change the proxy location
Date : 1732666029365 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text : cEJVLW5DZ2hRa2cgaSAgbG92ICB1IGV1LXByb3h5LnBva2V0dWJlLmZ1bg==
143 : true
170 Views • Nov 3, 2024 • Click to toggle off description
Views : 170
Genre: Entertainment
License: Standard YouTube License
Uploaded At Nov 3, 2024 ^^
warning: returnyoutubedislikes may not be accurate, this is just an estiment ehe :3
Rating : 5 (0/18 LTDR)
100.00% of the users lieked the video!!
0.00% of the users dislieked the video!!
User score: 100.00- Masterpiece Video
RYD date created : 2024-11-04T20:29:55.076Z
See in json
54 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
The real irony of this video is that the background music (Mozart's Turkish March ) makes for a more compelling case for God than any of the unsupported claims in the video. (granted, that's a really low bar, but still...)
|
Yeah... sorry buddy, but I'm not sure you even understand what the word "philosophy" means.
Your argument here is essentially: "You're wrong, I'm right, nana nana boo boo". Do better.
5 |
There were no proofs in this video
1 |
Very upsetting and disappointing video. There are plenty of ideologies in Philosophy that are intelligible without any claims about God such as secular humanism, stoicism, and platonism. How can you say that these don't make sense?
1 |
"If you remove God from the equation, philosophy makes no sense." False.
"If you remove God from the equation, philosophy makes no sense to those that presuppose that God is necessary for everything. " True.
The claim that God is necessary for X in your worldview is trivial and uninteresting. You've simply defined it as such.
The claim that God is necessary for X in ALL worldviews is a much more interesting claim and the claim that you're intending to make, however any attempt at substantiating this claim is ultimately going to boil down to some form of an argument for ignorance.
But of course, every time you think you're proving the second claim, you're inevitably dragging your own presuppositions in with it, so you're still just proving the first, uninteresting, trivial claim.
4 |
@rolandwatts3218
3 weeks ago
So you assert. But is there any chance at all that any or all of your assertions could be wrong?
5 |