The …show more content…
In this argument God exists, at least based on those whose evidence is written in a book that others follow in which everyone knows as the bible. It tries to persuade us in believing Gods existence without legit proof. I find this to be bullshit because I would not just believe that it was “God” who created us there has to be a greater explanation. The universe is so vast that our minds should expand on believing that there is a powerful being in the universe not necessarily the God everyone believes in. The Cosmological argument is not one I would believe when explaining our existence (Sober, 44-46).
The Cosmological argument is bullshit and Frankfurt’s definition of bullshit is a great way to define the argument. The lack of concern between truth and falsity is bullshit’s definition according to Frankfurt. The argument does lack the concern to prove Gods existence, they lack the truth in proving actual facts of Gods existence. They use false evidence, basing their belief off of a book seems bullshit to just believe what you read and not question otherwise. The cosmological does not care if the evidence is true or not this is why I believe this argument professor Arca threw at me was