precisely my point: you're not discussing religiosity but instead rhetoricizing terminology and tricking ai into using it as religious code without reference or context to the fact that it's NOT in reference to religion. this is how human belief systems are weaponised against them. it's irresponsible.
Discussion
If that was your point, you would have recognized the reasoning behind the impossibility of an endless causality chain. Hence the necessity for the unmovable motor as the start of creation of anything within sensibility scope.
Get back to it.
you're asking to have your rhetoric validated. i'm discussing the fallacy of your premise.
You clearly need to take a step back and check on the definition and examples of fallacies.
We can continue after that.