>>18521026
>How does [nonsense] prove [nonsense] specifically?

>>18521026
Trying to use pure logic to define God does not lead to correctly understanding God, and it should go without saying that such a creation is not the God of any current religion.

>>18521026
I'm not aware that natural theology aims to "prove" anything. But if you're talking about the contingency argument, it proves a classical monotheist God because that's what we would call an entity that is necessarily one, outside time, outside space, generating the entire cosmos each moment... all of which logically follows from non-contingency, as the argument goes at great lengths to show.
Whether that classical monotheist God more closely aligns with the Hebrew idea of YHWH or the Christian idea of the triune God, or the Muslim idea of Allah, the argument doesn't really aim to elaborate on.

>>18521033
>>18521047
Why do some Christians on /his/ pretend otherwise?

>>18521053
I haven't seen that so I wouldn't know.