Smart guy. I liked the first part. Negatives are easily proven. Yes, you have to define the thing you are going to prove or disprove. That brought us to the second part of the video, and I am not persuaded. The definitions of God offered are not valid IMO. The ensuing “proof” is only a proof that the definitions are invalid. The argument is only an argument against the traditional myths and dogma of the Bible.

As I have said before, it is easy to prove that the moon is not made of cheese. Whether the moon exists or not is a different question.

A proof is only a persuasion and there is absolutely no “burden” of proof. It is, in fact, impossible for anyone to prove anything to another person. We can point toward evidence and we can demonstrate logical analysis. The other person, if open-minded, might examine that evidence and go through the analysis and eventually become persuaded to some degree of certainty. If he does though, it will be his own doings and not ours.

Maybe omnipotence just means the ability to influence events in the physical realm. Certainly events are influenced totally by natural laws. And really, conscious thought does shape the future.

Maybe omnipresence is a way of saying that space as we perceive it is an illusion and that everything is conjoined—non-local. Scientists are saying the same thing.

Omniscience? Maybe that means complete knowledge of everything in the physical realm—not such a far-fetched idea under the concept of universal consciousness.

So far as “God” being benevolent, nature/god doesn’t give a rat’s ass about whether a baby is born with cancer. Human bodies are a dime a dozen. Every girl is born with a million human eggs, and obviously they need not all become happy, successful people. We are not our bodies.

Benevolence is to be found in Ultimate Reality, of which we are extensions.