I hate how when philosophers conclude that a singular creator deity has philosophical support, Christcucks try to use every mental gymnastic possible to claim that this means Christianity is correct.

Like, you do realize that it doesn’t specifically prove your religion correct, it just debunks atheism and polytheism? Other monotheistic religions like Islam or even Zoroastrianism could just as well claim that this proves their religion correct.

Hell, why not just disregard all these religions and just say a singular creator deity having philosophical support proves Deism correct? After all, Deism is more rational and logical than most religions and was historically a more common form of “irreligiousness” than atheism. It was the belief of many enlightenment-era thinkers and even the US founding fathers.

>>17841335 (OP)
>it just debunks atheism and polytheism
So 99.9% of all alternatives... that's pretty good.

>>17841335 (OP)
Most major polytheistic religions I can think of already have some kind of prime mover accounted for in their cosmology. Polytheism honestly seems to make the most sense for how chaotic the supernatural world is and why we differ on who the gods are and what they want.

But if you're seriously asking why dogmatic monotheists want to use the works of philosophers to prove that they're right... well, why wouldn't they? Look how Aquinas mutilated Aristotle's works for example.

ok