The cosmological argument is bullshit. It's just another God of the gaps argument. "I can't imagine what could have caused the universe to exist therefore it MUST have been God"

isn't this argument a rather god of the gaps argument? which is a very safe but pointless point to hold?

Richard Carrier of Atheism+ fame countered with the Universe As God response

its a problem of poor understanding of non-supernaturalists

and bad theologic understanding

Which was interesting to read through

This whole discussion is for fags at the end of the day.

as literally zero religions in existence argue that all their god did was be the first observer.

@Holmes10 yeah but that's not what this debate is about

and @Mongo Jongo yeah this is a very academic discussion

If we accept that there must be a mover, and the universe exists, why can the universe not be its own mover, as God would necessarily be the first mover if used as a cause

Word salad

What is?

this is gonna be rephrased 6 times before somebody says enough

and the argument itself will never change

Oh in the actual debate

Aight gs.

Not you beeman...

I've heard self causing one too many times.

Was confused for a moment lol

I'mma head out 🤗👌🏽😎

Peace homie

this isn't the reason I state you can't argue to God

@TheCompanyMan lol

but it is an example of the problem

@A. Spader 😘

@Mongo Jongo someone finally got my "post-debate duel" being flesh swords and meat cannons joke

to point out from a theologic foundation you can't engage the mind to God either

Bravo, good sir

this is just Pius word salading around Spader. pretty lame. he is defending the most minimalist form of god. which I'll grant does satisfy the statement but is a pretty semantic and kinda lame one.

@Holmes10 yeah because Pius is defending the existence of God, not his character

its a God of the gaps argument which is theortical

At least with the impeachment stuff today Devin Nunes added some humor, this could use some humor 🙂

I agree the debate is pretty pedantic but Fond wouldn't debate the character of God

Yeah this conversation is pretty low T and dry.

because that's a theological discussion more than a philisophical one

also the default position is that something doesn't exist and that position must be refuted not proven.

the only manner in which you can actually confirm God is through theological foundation arguing in a moral base, a philosphy of God will never actually definitively confirm a god

>fond wouldn't debate the character of God
Why not?

oh I meant in the same way

because you have to define God existing first