Why does god need five proofs

shouldnt one be enough

obviously if there's five, they're weak and full of holes

"ohh ok you only disproved 4 of the proofs"

theyve all stood unchallenged for 800 years

i challenge them

well except for the argument from motion, that ones stood for 2300 years

1. White People
2. Hitler
3. You can't prove God doesn't exist.
4. Ropes.
5. My mom told me so.

since aristotle

ropes is the most convincing

the argument from motion is literally brainlet though

they make zero sense

inertia isnt a valid counter argument

4 is the worst type of cope

"there needs to be a most perfect being"

"that being is god"

you're doing what young earth christian fundies do with evolution. "oh if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys"

to that i would say, you dont have an objective definition of perfection

and nothing says a maximally perfect being is god... it could be some massive unvierse spanning AI network, it still wouldnt be god

the arguments are way more sophisticated then these caricature internet summaries present them as

hahaha science faggots hahahahahaha

*guffaw*

thats reasonable glamp

you can present them someday

why does one not make sense though? It's basically saying whatever force that caused the big bang, was god

no

implying the big bang exists

it literally doesnt not say that

what caused god then?

thats the caricature

implying we could ever know the truth of the creation of the universe

that woudl be a really silly argument for god

hahahaha fools

argument isnt even about that

i am the truth and the way

the whole point of the argument is to explain the existence of change

believe in me and you shall have eternal life

the existence of change requires an unchanging changer. nothing to do with particles moving around, nothing to do with the universe having a beginning

change doesnt require an unchanging changer

in fact, change doesnt really occur