It would not necessarily be the end of the religion in any major way

Never said it would.

Most Christians I think do not even know the first mover argument

But at least I will have no more reservations about setting myself against them, and I can forward such refutes to other intelligent individuals who are unsure about it as I am.

You can refute it already

Make an argument on geographical favoritism

Tengri, is that you?

No

His argument convinced me though

It's a silly argument.

I agree with Tengri too.

But he does make a fair point

Christianity claims god is just and the argument on geographical favoritism clearly puts itself against that claim

The empirical proof would be a world map on religious composition

In principal, only a perfect God can know what is perfect good. Reservations about the realities of Him come from an anthropological basis. You have to first grant that you would know better than a perfect being, which you don't.

So essentially this is the same as arguing that "God is mysterious in his ways"

What is the difference between this and the guy's claim that Tengri is mysterious in making all religions lead to him?

The difference is logical coherency. The 'all roads lead to Tengri' argument is based on a fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Whereas the perfect God argument is based on the premise that a God exists.

If the premise is that Tengri exists, shouldn't the all religions argument also work for Tengriism?

If Tengri is God, the Tengriist make additional claims about his nature. You need to follow up with additional arguments.

An omnipotent god would be a perfect god, logically

Correct.

Tengriists believe their god is omnipotent

Good so far.

And that their god provides different methods to reach him

So if god is perfect

Then this last statement must be true

That's the unknown quantity. How does a perfect God act his goodness?

I've been looking for servers like this for a year

Tengriists believe their god is perfect I presume

Which is why they justify everyone going to paradise

Why would everyone have to go to paradise?

I believe Tengriists follow the philosophy of determinism

The Tengriist believes in a god without standards.

Which is the reason they use the different paths for different cultures argument

But why does a perfect God have to deliver everyone to paradise?

Why does god necessarily need standards?

Why does a perfect god not délivrer everyone to heaven?

The Absolute, be definition, is beyond us. We are like children asking why we can't all have candy all the time.

Of course, I don't agree with any of this nonsense

I am simply making my case that the two religions are similar

This is a theoretical argument, sure.

In their fallacious logic

The both have problems, but for different reasons.

I am pedantic about why things are wrong, not just that they are.

My logic is that if we can make the case that two logics can be disproven on the backbone of similar logical failures, then one cannot reasonably choose one over the other

Religions*

It would then be illogical to pick one religion over the other

There can only be one primarily correct religion, but it is possible that some religions can co-exist as a subset of another.

Tengri is one example, Islam may be another grey area.

The issue is that in this case Tengriism and Christianity clearly contradict

They do.

From the perspective of Christians

@TAbell Welcome, comrade.

But if the fatal flaw for both can be pinpointed on one error, "god is mysterious and perfect and can therefore make this worse", and if they contradict, they cannot coexist

One is wrong and the other is correct

No one can reasonably decide which one is correct

So that destroys any attempt to prove one religion until the "god can make it work" part is dispelled

Not with 100% certainty. But you can propose natural reason to show why your religion is more coherent than all the others, and why it contradicts.

@TAbell Don't look Chopin in the eyes or he will try to baptize you.

Alrighty then

She's a beauty.

You can tell how much the T34 traumatised the Germans by the fact all their new tanks after the invasion of Russia favoured sloped armour over their traditional 'folded steel'. It was an irrational response to a real nightmare.

You cannot underestimate the psychological damage the T34 had on the Wehrmacht leadership.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCETWvkV0AEfSXr.jpg

Imitation is flattery.

Or is this case, terror.

Damn whoever used that sword was a giant

I honestly dont know if that sword was ever used

if you were hit with the full force of that thing you would most likely be cleaved in half

The handle is too small for a normal sized person to be using it

Gigantism is a disease so it was probably there in the middle ages

Found an armor set

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-69098b188e3be1be324232e010fec5a8-c

wew

maybe Giants were real

Just giant ass soldiers

Imagine the money they could have made from being mercs

How tall is the dude on the left

could have been a manlet

No clue

wanna see something hilarious

look at this dude😂 😂 😂 😂

Sure

Oh yeah I saw an ISIS documentary

They were showing their shortest and tallest soldiers

This midget Isis fighter

I'll see if I can find a pic

Regarding Aquinas, I have come to the realisation that discrediting his primary premise that 'all things that move are moved by other things' is the key to refuting his argument. And the way to do this is with direct empirical observation. The best counterexample I know I modern science is Quantum Fluctuations in a vacuum, "the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle." Such an observation directly contradicts Aquinas'.