lmao fuck Azov

I specially by theologians who make arguments for the existence of God based on oversimplified observations. They are, as Freuerbach put it, trying to 'deduce empirical existence from an a priori idea'.

They are perfectly happy to accept their conclusions right up until they are empirically shown to be wrong.

I disagree with religion in that it teaches you to be content with no motivation to search for more

They assume an Absolute existence based on a temporary existence.

It would be worse if they did not accept empirical evidence

There are still evolution deniers

If the Church ever has to retract Aquinas' argument, based on 'all things that move are moved by other things' (Compendium of Theology), because science refutes it, then whole thing goes down.

Catholics don't deny evolution.

It won't go down. They will simply say that they believe in God through faith, as most Christians today do

However, it would be vulnerable to other religions claiming the same

In which case whose is better? There would be no answer

They would jump to trying to prove Jesus' resurrection again

Proving that the theology of the Church was based on an irrational basis, is enough for me.

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.