[5 / 2 / ?]
>Something something First Cause something something
>IT PROVES THAT GOD-JESUS AND THE BIBLE ARE 100% REAL!!!! BOW TO THE POPE YOU FEDORAKEKS!
Is that the biggest non-argument used by religious people? how is the most barebone "god" conceivable an argument in favor of any actual religion?
The religious concept of God is just so vague that you can pretend the First Cause is your God.
No one but people with an interest in philosophy would care if that wasn't for religious people using the First Cause as a proof that their whole religion is somehow true.
Are for example christians so fixated on their perceived binary positions of "TRUE CHRISTIAN LIKE ME" and "FILFTHY GODLESS HEATEN" that they think that undermining any category of non-christians (atheists in that case) is automatically proving THEIR religion right?
Or are they just unable to dissociate any notion of God from their Christian God?
Why are arguments like the First Cause not proving only the remotest deism or even another religion than theirs?
>IT PROVES THAT GOD-JESUS AND THE BIBLE ARE 100% REAL!!!! BOW TO THE POPE YOU FEDORAKEKS!
Is that the biggest non-argument used by religious people? how is the most barebone "god" conceivable an argument in favor of any actual religion?
The religious concept of God is just so vague that you can pretend the First Cause is your God.
No one but people with an interest in philosophy would care if that wasn't for religious people using the First Cause as a proof that their whole religion is somehow true.
Are for example christians so fixated on their perceived binary positions of "TRUE CHRISTIAN LIKE ME" and "FILFTHY GODLESS HEATEN" that they think that undermining any category of non-christians (atheists in that case) is automatically proving THEIR religion right?
Or are they just unable to dissociate any notion of God from their Christian God?
Why are arguments like the First Cause not proving only the remotest deism or even another religion than theirs?
