system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why is so much weight put on the cosmological arguments for God?

Regardless if it's from aquinas, leibniz, W.L.C, ect, all of them only ever point towards a first cause. None of these point towards a God who cares about what kind of combinations of fabric you wear for your clothes, who you sleep with, what you eat, ect. 

I'm only asking this now because of the many debates I've seen ok the existence or God, regardless if it's a Christian, Muslim, or jew, they all immediately often use some variation of the cosmological argument which in itself, can only ever prove a deistic God at best. 

The worst part about this is when the atheist debater tries so hard to try to throw God out of the equation entirely even though even if they accept the consomolgical argument, none of It leads to a theistic God.

Why is there so much of an argument about whether God exists rather than whether a *theistic* God exists when the cosmological argument cannot prove theism? A deistic God means nothing to our existence in a prescriptive sense; It's existence is completely benign.
gpt
*Theistic God* is an odd phrase, since theism is just the affirmation of the existence of God. But presumably this is the usual complaint: "sure, this argument might establish that *something* created/sustains/etc. the universe, but not what that thing is like."

The answer is that all cosmological arguments are meant to do, on their own, is reason that the universe requires a creator/sustainer/etc. There are then other arguments by various authors attempting to establish what this thing must be like, and that it's identical with God as worshipped by, e.g., the Abrahamic religions. The idea that cosmological arguments are, or should be, complete and self-contained arguments for some broad theological view or religious doctrine is just bizarre; how could one expect to see an argument for something that big in just a few bullet points?