@!GoldenKingship! Prove that.

Ok i will, prepare to get debunked athiest.

Go ahead and try.

Me- "So lets go over one reason or proof of God existence, We all know that motion in the what we call universe had to have been started by another motion of action.
This action for say is done by a mover, this mover enacts a force onto another object which then moves.
So if you go back to the first mover. We know that it had to of been put in motion by no other than; and everyone knows this to be God."

This is what i said like last week.

No that's the incorrect definition of motion.

Anient science proves it

Like I said before.

Motion is relative, things are movig relative to other things that are moving relative to them.

This is not ancient science.

It is Aristotelian metaphysics which is false, since we have a better understanding of physics.

Things were never infinetley in motion to begin with.

Metaphysics follows physics.

Hence the 'meta'.

You can't not have somthing move and another not move.

You are denying the fact that in our universe there is a begining and an end.

An unmoved mover does not equal God as well.

No b-theory of time.

"Began to exist" is incoherent.

In the begining chaos was the lack of motion, and in the end there is nothing but frozen cosmo.

Nope.

You say there is no such thing as a beging because your claiming its all infinitley relative without the involvement of God even begining it all?

You are using Aquinas' first way, yes?

No I'm claiming 'began to exist' is incoherent according to b-theory of time.

And your definition of motion is incorrect, I'm correcting it.

Even proven in the Bible

Wrong.

Why are you using the Bible?

Arguing for God does not require prior belief.

This is metaphysics, not the Bible.

Because its recorded in the bible.

Circular reasoning.

1) The Bible is true
2) This is because it is recorded in the Bible
3) Therefore it is true

Why are you taking Golden boy seriously lol

The library of alexandria was burned so humanity lost like 5000 years of knowledge and now people like you come out of the wedlock to deny God had any involvement in the creation of the universe and Manm

This is called begging the question fallacy.

Clearly this man has not hard of the school of skepticism.

Nor of epicureans.

This has nothing to do with the topic.

This debate is about philosophy and religion. The fact that you deny aquinas's perspectives is just another dumbfounded counter arguement to make

Aquinas has been refuted though.