By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LuccaCardoso1 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Many of the responses to the cosmological argument (which is in my eyes by far the strongest) have been pretty weak and pretty much come down to "well, you just can't claim it is so" or they deny metaphysics in their entirity. Just to show, that both sides need to really try to cover their philosophical shortfalls. And atheists are no exception

The cosmological argument is not strong at all. It's just god of the gaps. You can say that it was god, as you can say that it was a huge spaghetti monster or a cute puppy, and all of them would have the same number of evidence: zero.

It could not as easily been one of these other options because God would have a form that incorporates all qualities. A spaghettimonster or puppy is out of the question. And the cosmological argument is just that, an argument. No religious person would see God only as a deity with qualities from the cosmological argument. So a "God of the gapps" is a weak refute.