Alright, I've looked into cosmological arguments and I am

>Read cosmological arguments
>Somehow this proves the existence of a tripartite God, and that wine and bread literally become God and you eat him?

Pure mental gymnastics, I believe In God, and I don't rely on cosmological arguments for my faith; But trying to use it as a crutch for Christianity and the trinity is just dishonest.

>>2908845

Then you're a dope. Cosmological arguments are among the weakest """evidence""" simpletons cite for their space wizard.

>>2908867
Nice reading comprehension.
I said I had been convinced by Cosmological arguments, and wanted someone to explain why the Abrahamic God specifically, of all possible Gods, would be the correct singular God.

>>2908845
if the big bang turns out to be true then causality goes out the window. try again.

Are you convinced in the hypothetical just for the sake of discussion, OP? If not I'm curious which arguments convinced you. Have you heard the garage dragon problem?

>>2908924
Yes, thank you, for the love of God. I didn't expect this board to be this needlessly pedantic, I imagine this would have been even less well-received on /lit/.

>>2908924
>Have you heard the garage dragon problem?
Yeah my cousin bought me their album last year.

I'll even restate it-Assuming that I could know with 100% certainty that the Universe was created by a God, would it then be possible to discern that this God is the Abrahamic God if said Universe was exactly the same as our own?

>>2908947

That shit fucking ROCKS

>>2908946

The mistake you made was expecting the religious to actually turn up and try and make some arguments against your position. They would obviously get wiped out and they all know it.

Instead you got rational people saying "hold on even you premise is dodgy".

Instead all you

>>2908978
> Instead all you

Somebody call 911

>>2908986

Help me, anon, you're my only hope.

>>2908845
When you were studying it what books for and against the idea did you read?

>>2908978
>>2908946
The problem with arguing for any sort of spirituality is that it's a futile endeavor. Especially with materialistic atheist. 99.99% of the time they're going to have presumed assumptions
A.) you were taught your chosen spirituality by your parents as opposed to finding it on your own
B.) you're simply driven by muh feels instead of any methodological approach such as "I found X meditation, practiced for X amount of time while studying X text/religion and received X as a result."
C.) Any phenomena or results from X such as an improved life, feelings of growth, gnosis or unique dreams/visions is dismissed as being a mental condition.

And to top it off, since they aren't driven by a sincere curiosity to learn they'll just belittle any attempts at reaching mutual understanding. It's not that I'm afraid to argue but it simply isn't worth my time. As for whether or not I have an argument for the supposedly shared "Abrahamic" God? Well I personally believe in a God which transcends religions and that most religions have wisdom to be found in them. In my own experiences something along the lines of Gnosticism, perennial traditionalism, or even Hinduism is more reasonable and logical to being "true" (as in accurately describing the metaphysical character of existence) while Roman Catholicism gives me the most inner peace.

Doesn't God being the God of Christianity come from Jesus's resurrection being an indisputable historical fact?
If you want more detail than check out William Lane Craig at ReasonableFaith.org or in his many important and influential debates/discussions on YouTube.