>>3505244
Also notice: if you point your finger at the world around like the caveman and say "God's creation", i.e. defining God "that which created all this", that can be a valid definition, but it tells us nothing about God because that which created everything can be anything.
So you might end up with "God" = "The Big Bang", or "random quantum fluctuations of the vacuum zero point energy", or something like that. Calling it God is again the nominal fallacy because you're trying to explain something by giving it the name "God". This is the God the Prime Mover, the cause of causes, definition. That line of thinking explains neither the world, nor God, and it would be foolish to have a faith based on it.
As for the question itself, "Does God exist?" then boils down to "Is there an Original Cause?", to which you could point out that the question of original causes depends on the idea that everything has a cause, and so the notion is self-defeating because it doesn't stop at God.
And that's why the theists dropped the "prime mover" argument of God as well.
