God Probably Exists

Kalam Cosmological ArgumentOV1-This argument is referred to as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, developed by William Lane Craig. I will thus be referring to his “elaborations” of specific premises that were not explained by Pro enough to properly negate. OV2-If I disprove only one of the premises of the argument, the entire argument falls. For step-by-step logic, it needs every premise to leave the conclusion intact. Thus, if Pro properly defends every single one of my attacks of the premises, then the argument passes. But if does all but one, I negate the entire argument. OV3-My case against the KCA is largly influenced by Tejretics critique of it on his blog [2].All premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument are logically valid. Valid meaning that premise leads to conclusion. But, as you will find, the argument as a whole is not sound. In order for an argument to be sound, it must fulfill two premises: 1) all its premises are true, and (2) it is logically valid. The argument meets the second premise, but not the first. Like this argument: 1) Anyone that enjoys chocolate is a lizard. 2) I enjoy chocolate.3) I am a lizard. The argument is logically valid (the premises leads to a conclusion), but it is not logically sound (all its premises aren’t true), because there are plenty of people that enjoy tomatoes that aren’t lizards, such as myself. Thus, I will show how each individual premise is false.Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.There are two things wrong with this premise. Firstly, Craig justifies this premise by intuition, “out of nothing, nothing comes”. But this justification is a logical fallacy; the appeal to intuition [1]. There’s no reason to believe that human intuition would work outside the universe, a place lacking space and time. Second, it is fallacious to invoke causation when humans cannot comprehend it. The cause of the universe could not exist within the universe because the universe would have to exist for that to happen, but since this is prior to its existence (its causation), it must exist outside the universe. But without the universe, there is no time. Our entire comprehension of cause-effect relationships assume that time exists, and is flowing. Thus, it is impossible for us to comprehend this level of causation, and foolish to invoke it. Therefore, there is no ground on which to adduce causation. Premise 2) The universe began to exist.This is directly negated by my Eternalism argument. Thus, if Pro fails to disprove Eternalism, he loses this premise, and thus loses the entire argument. The Truth ArgumentThis argument is self-refuting. Through the proof, Pro uses two different types of truth. The first, not specifically named, and the second, universal truth. You have to understand what universal truth is to see how the argument is false. Truth can be defined as universal if it is valid in all times and places [4]. Thus, Pro’s example of 1+1=2 would still be true regardless of whether a universal mind exists or not. Therefore premise c) does not necessitate d) true, and does not prove the existence of God. The Axiological ArgumentMy response to this argument is based off the counter-argument proposed by Plato in “Euthypro”. The argument can be summed up as follows [3].(1) If the argument is true, then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.(4) Therefore it is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then God would have absolutely no basis to justify his command.(6) If God has no basis on which to justify his command, then his decision/command is just as good as anyone else’s. (7) Thus, there is no reason to hold God’s interpretation of what's objectively right or wrong.(8)It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.(9) Therefore the argument is false. Defense of 2 & 3)If (i) is true, it would mean that they must be morally good prior to God commanding them, or else God would not will them. If these facts are morally good prior to God commanding them, then they are independent from God. Thus, God is not needed for objective morals to exist (they are not dependent on them as the Pro’s argument holds). Defense of 5 & 6)If the argument is true, all morality depends on God’s decision what to command. Thus, God’s decision on what to command can not be informed by morality. If morally good acts are morally good because they are commanded by God, then they must be commanded by God before they are morally good. It must be that God makes his decision what to command in a moral vacuum [4].This means that any decision God makes on morality has just as much validity on as any other, and there is no reason to follow God’s command over any other. [1] http://www.seekfind.net...[2] http://gotejas.com...[3] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)