A long time ago I made a video that dismantled the Modal Ontological Argument for God's Existence as presented by Inspiring Philosophy. To IP's credit, he later put together a formal response to my video called AntiCitizenX's Maximally Great Field of Straw Men. You can tell that he put a lot of work into his response, so I feel that I owe him a formal rebuttal. This is philosophy, after all, and good philosophy rests on a proper exchange of ideas.
Dear Inspiring Philosophy,
What part of "You cannot prove God's existence by rote definition" does your idiotic, peon brain fail to understand?
Thanks for reading.