Everyone knows that the least convincing proofs for God's existence are the "ontological" arguments of Pascal and Anselm. But for my money, the *second* least convincing proof is the "first cause" argument, which in its simplest form can be stated as "Everything has a cause. Therefore, something does not have a cause."
(I'm not including arguments in favor of belief in God that don't even address existence, such as Pascal's Wager or Life of Pi.)
@CarlMuckenhoupt The version of it that I find the most absurd is the one that boils down to “Everything has a cause. Therefore *exactly one thing* does not have a cause.”
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!