Atheist shitters will never be able to explain who set the universe in motion and created their precious science
Yeah we can’t possibly know what the beginning of existence was GG.
>>18661555How many prime movers?
>>18661582Yes
>>18661555That we don't know how or what allowed the universe to begin with does not mean that there is a who behind this all. Our ignorance in this subject is not a problem since either evidence could be found that explains the instigation or that the processes of the instigation has removed any and all traces of it happening and we will never know. This ignorance should not be the cause of suddenly explaining the instigation by attributing it to some random deity people made up in the Middle East.
>>18661555Aristotle believed there were 40 or 50 prime movers. There doesn’t need to be a single source as multiple things can emerge independently of each other
>>18661555you dont need a prime mover if the universe is eternal. try again.
The strongest objections to the Prime Mover argument (particularly Aquinas's First Way and related cosmological arguments) fall into three categories: logical gaps, empirical challenges, and explanatory failures.1. The Special Pleading / Brute Fact ProblemThe most persistent objection: if everything requires a mover or cause, why does the Prime Mover escape this requirement?Defenders reply that the Prime Mover is unmoved by definition—it is the termination point of the explanatory chain. But the atheist can reframe the objection: why assume the chain needs termination at all? If the universe itself is accepted as a brute fact (a necessary, uncaused existent), the explanatory work is done without importing an extra metaphysical entity. The theist stops the regress with God; the atheist stops it with nature.2. Infinite Regress Is Not Obviously ImpossibleThe argument assumes an infinite regress of causes is metaphysically impossible. But:• Modern set theory handles actual infinities without contradiction.• In physics, infinite regress models (e.g., cyclic cosmologies, eternal inflation) are mathematically coherent.• Aquinas's claim that an infinite regress of simultaneous causes is impossible relies on a medieval physics of motion that doesn't obviously survive modern scrutiny.3. The Quantum Challenge to "Everything Moved Is Moved by Another"The premise that every change requires an external changer is empirically suspect. Quantum events—radioactive decay, spontaneous particle pair production, vacuum fluctuations—appear to be genuinely uncaused at the level of physical description. If physical reality contains uncaused motion, the foundational premise of the argument collapses.4. The Gap Problem: Prime Mover ≠ GodEven granting a first cause or unmoved mover, nothing in the argument establishes:• Consciousness or intentionality• Omnipotence,
>>18661555Neither can theists
Atheists can't even decide what a woman is or what is moral. They think these things are social constructs.
>>18661756Trve
>>18661555>Atheist shitters will never be able to explain who set the universe in motion and created their precious scienceIt was the invisible Charles Darwin in the sky.There, happy?
