The Existence of God

The Cosmological Argument Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause. This is an undeniable fact. Whatever phenomena comes into being, it has a cause to its existence. The universe has to have had a cause. An infinite regression is impossible. You cannot regress back through the chain of cause and effect for eternity. Eventually you must find yourself to the original uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, and I say you will find God there waiting for you.The Change Argument Every change in reality has a cause. The universe was a change in reality. Therefore the universe has a cause. This is almost the same argument from above, except with a twist. Change is defined as the act or instance of making or becoming different. Before the universe came into existence, there was no time, there were no laws of the universe, everything breaks down when you come to this point. Before we had reality as we know it, we had something else entirely, and this reality we know very little of. There must be something which is without change, changeless. I believe this changeless being to be God. But how can something which cannot think outside of its own reality bring about such a dramatic change in reality such as the universe?The Sentience Argument Change in reality as we know it can only come from a thinking mind, a sentient mind. Before there was the universe and all of its fine-tuned and unchanging laws, there was nothing. Because only a sentient being can change reality as it knows it in its mind, God must have created the universe. This argument is hard to explain. But basically, when you regress in the long, long chain of cause and effect, of change in reality, you must come to something that is changeless, that is uncaused. A natural mechanism that cannot think outside of itself doesn't really fit the magnitude and power, the beauty, of such a dramatic change in reality like the universe. I would argue that this uncaused, changeless cause of all that is, is sentient, capable of thinking outside of its own reality.Think about it for a second, let your imagination go wild. You can think of many other realities, phenomena that simply can't exist in this universe of ours. But why do these things not exist in reality the same way they do in our minds? We do not have the power to create that which we think, however, God does.Another issue with a natural mechanism as being the changeless uncaused cause, is that there must have been a point in time (time being defined here as the continued progress of existence) when nothing was happening at all, even if just for a brief moment. Now think of a machine, it doesn't work unless a thinking mind turns it on or programs it to turn on by itself. How can one justify the very first change in reality as being something that doesn't think, when only something that can think has the ability to truly create? So try to put yourself at that initial point of reality, of how everything was before it is now. Can the very first uncaused changeless cause be something which doesn't think? How else can change in the totality of existence come to be unless this being can think outside of its own reality?Another thing about a natural mechanism that could replace God as the foundation of all that is, is the problem if infinity. A natural mechanism which cannot think, cannot choose to stop. It simply acts according to its nature, doing what must be done because it is the nature of itself to, well, naturally do what it is naturally there for. I'm not sure how many of you will understand what I am trying to say, and unfortunately, my vocabulary is very limited. Basically, what I am saying is that if this were the case, a natural mechanism would not suffice, because there would never be a point where there wasn't change in reality being done. The natural mechanism would simply continuously do what it is naturally meant to do. How did it decide to do this, creating, in the first place? If it can't think, then you could say that there is still the problem of infinity, as there was never a point where this natural mechanism wasn't still, so it's almost like the problem of infinity still exists. In fact, there has to be a point where it was still, and then began to move, to create. But why be still and then move unless it was a sentient being?These are definitely questions that must be answered clearly by Con, in order for him to replace God with a natural mechanism.The Morality ArgumentWithout something to objectively define morality, it then becomes subjective and a choice purely on the part of the individual and the collection of individuals in a society. This means if I were a fluent enough, charismatic enough, charming enough, and so on individual, I could convince my society that it's okay to kill people from other societies because they are not as good as us, or simply because they are not us.You can no longer say, "Murder is wrong", but only, "I think murder is wrong". There is nothing to decide morality objectively. It would then make morality into whatever one wants morality to be. Sure there are good reasons not to steal and good reasons to steal. There is a difference between greed and poverty. But there is nothing at the base, at the foundation, to say stealing is wrong in the first place. It is all subject to constant change.I would argue that God is the best decider of objective morality. The "Because I Said So" Argument Whatever I say is to be taken as factual. I say that God exists. Therefore God exists. This is one of the most promising arguments that can be made. Natural law dictates that Talib.ul-Ilm is always right. This has been proven by the top scientists of today, during long hours of medical testing.Lets think about this for a second. Can it really be that whatever I say is to be taken as factual? Yes, it can. Do you see now? I can't be wrong, because I am never wrong. For me to be wrong when I am never wrong is absolutely wrong. But everyone else is wrong, so for them to say something that is against what I say makes them wrong. The only reason they are ever right is because they are agreeing with me, and only because I am right, they are right. This is a natural law of the universe, which revolves around Talib.ul-Ilm. Whatever I say is to be taken as factual. I say that Magic is wrong. Therefore Magic is wrong. ConclusionI will now await Magic's response to my arguments for the existence of God.