LuccaCardoso1 said:
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.