535
Trump's spiritual advisor says that saying no to him is like saying no to God
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
535 points (98.9% liked)
politics
29552 readers
1479 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can name like ten.
But you asked for one, so here you go.
The “First Cause” / “Unmoved Mover” (Classical Theism). Associated with Aristotle and later Thomas Aquinas.
God here is not a being in the universe, nor an interventionist agent tinkering with physics. Simply the necessary grounding of existence or causality itself.
Science describes how events unfold within the universe. This concept addresses why there is a universe at all (or why causal chains exist).
There is no contradiction because they operate at different explanatory levels.
My point stands. The common understanding of god is narrowly scoped to the piss poor anthropic god provided by Christianity and the like. There’s a broader world out there.
There is no necessary grounding for causality. Insisting there must be one is special pleading. And the prime mover god fails in any eternal universe model because infinite regress isn't a contradiction or impossibility. You'd also have to explain what created god; failing that, you'd have to special plead that it doesn't need a creator.
All said, the prime mover argument is one of the five dumbest arguments for a god.
But it isn’t a proof for God, It’s a definition of God. And these definitions of God have existed for a long time, which is why I would argue this isn’t a move of the goal post. These are goal posts that have been ignored. There’s also the idea that God is the totality of the universe, and that doesn’t come with any anthropic claims. In fact, I’d argue God being the totality of the universe is closer to some of the beliefs people have in modern day — loosely in association with Astrology, or the belief in some kind of cosmic energies. They just don’t call it God, But if you can distance yourself from the anthropic claims of God, then you can see they’re quite similar.
They do look quite similar, in that they're beliefs entirely ungrounded in observable evidence or rationality.
Yeah, nobody is arguing that these claims are grounded in observable evidence. I certainly am not. The only reason that argument has air is because people profess that it doesn’t exist in their scientific view of the world, where you “proportion belief to the evidence.” Nobody is saying that’s wrong. I’m just saying it leaves people with a pretty hollow understanding of what’s actually a much richer subject. People love to strawman the idea of god. Nobody likes to discuss the good things that came from having a common religion, regardless of how you define god. Nobody likes to consider that so many definitions of god don’t even operate on the same level of abstraction as science, and therefore you can hold both beliefs. Nobody takes seriously the argument that spirituality might be rather important for the animal which evolved for hundreds of thousands of years with spiritual beliefs and practices. Rather, we forget our neighbors and wonder why we are lonely.
Shrugging your shoulders and saying "must be god" is not addressing anything.
Which, coincidentally, is perfectly fitting to describe (make up) a god!