I still am willing to try and propose a ponder on the subject later on or post-debate/post-QA, but anything I'll end up saying would probably break the discussion

Tbh metaphysics was probably a bad jumping point for a first debate. It honestly works better as a discussion anyway

partly, but the bigger issue is broken theologic foundation

you can't argue this unless you have a definite form for the subject which just to point out is by definition of omnipetence impossible

Metaphysics always meanders on

thus humanistic reason can not achieve a definitive nor reasonable explaination regarding some god or the God

Just get proof god exists, all these other arguments are meaningless

man would not believe no matter the proof

if A then B then C

Nah, it still doesnt quite follow

You could prove a higher power exists and it could be not-God

Or it could be one of many higher powers

but you'll always get stuck on what created those beings

which becomes circular

The Great Will my dude

if its omnipetent then you still can't explain its existence through humanistic reason

I came to watch two nerds yell at eachother.

Muh movers
I do need to legit read more about gnosticism though

I'm waiting for it to get passive aggressive.

only thing I need to ponder on is how fat dat ass --->>>🍑

God for those who believe is a journey to proof that will never be found but it's the journey that matters.

Lame journey

just to point out that's not true, at least for Christian Theologians

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...