The Statement 'God Exists' is Rationally Justifiable.

- I must confess, English is not my native language, & on top of that I have studied Philosophy in another language, & so it has been a bit of challenge to figure out which corresponds to which between my native language & English. I hope the voters would understand my position since I could be making semantical mistakes without even being aware of them. - That been said, I will try to clarify more my core argument so as there won’t be any ambiguity. I would just like to add, Con defines necessary as ‘true in all possible world’, which deductively means: true in all cases, which I have proved. But then Con abusively uses this definition in its inductive sense, & tries to falsify my argument based on this dubious move! Argument-0: - As I stated repeatedly throughout my argument, which Con seems to ignore every instance, when I speak of cause it’s either in the sense of inductive causality (in part 2), or in the sense of existence (in part 1): > An entity that is existent spontaneously by itself, & thus without a cause, must be necessary, because otherwise, it would, by definition, be contingent. If that is so, the entity then may or may not exist & thus its existence potentially fails. & so the question rests: what is the agent of its existence, is it internal to it, or external to it? If the agent is internal to it, then the entity must exist necessarily, because then it wouldn’t fail to exist; but if the agent is external, the entity must thus be contingent. - The existence of a particular or universal object ca either be: necessary, or not necessary: possible or impossible. For, there are existent entities -since otherwise nothing would be existent!-. => Thus, Existence is either necessary or not (contingent). > If Existence is contingent then all existent entities are contingent, & thus not necessary. The Universe (ensemble of all existent entities) is therefore, either contingent itself, or not contingent & thus necessary. >> In case the Universe is not necessary then it has an external cause. Its cause can not be contingent, because otherwise it would be part of the Universe. Therefore, the cause is necessary, necessarily existent. => Therefore, in all cases, Existence is necessary. In other words, ‘There is a necessary existent’ is true in all cases, & thus True. Rebuttals: - Con tries to argue that the world may be entirely contingent, yet uncaused! I don’t know what to say to that! Or maybe he is just thinking of inductive causality again. - Con considers my assertion in R2: “Existence is necessary to itself, otherwise it wouldn’t be. Therefore, an Essential (necessary) Existence is necessary.” as unsupported, ignoring the fact that I proved it in R3 (& as I mentioned before, R2 was only there to allow Con to formulate his arguments) - Con wants a syllogistic reasoning: P1. ? ? ?P2. Existence is necessary to itselfC. Therefore an Essential existence is necessary >>> Which I find very odd, because my reasoning (proof by cases) is equivalent to syllogism. ‘premise 2 is just a bare assertion, as his only defence is ‘otherwise it would not be’, this is not an argument.’ - Apparently Con hasn't read my R3! ‘To make things worse still, Pro is treating the notion of existence itself like an existing ‘thing’’ - There is no argument here! This is just semantics, whether Existence is a thing in itself or just an attribute doesn’t change anything in my argument. Which oddly Con confirms later: ‘existence is simply the difference between an essence that is actual, and one that is not actual’. ‘Pro makes an enormous jump between something being the ‘Essential Existance’ and something being the ‘First Cause’.’ - Here again Con insinuates inductive causality! The Essential Existence as I defined it is, by definition, the First Cause, there is nothing to prove here (ref. my definition of First Cause) -cause in the sense of existence- (since there is one Essential Existence, it must, by defintion, be the First Cause). ‘the universe for example is an essential existence, then the universe can just exist as-is necessarily, and causality would just be an emergent phenomena. There would be no ‘first cause’ any more than a triangle has a ‘first side’.’ - I am starting to wonder if Con ever read R3 or just jumped on R2 without doing so! Here again Con ignores the fact that I actually mentioned the case of the Universe being necessarily existent. & he once more confuses inductive causality with existence (which may be my fault after all, there might be more precise semantics I could’ve used but couldn’t find). - & thus this supposition Con makes is already convered by my Argument. ‘Pro’s arguments against an eternal universe presuppose presentism. . . Pro has given absolutely no reason to believe Presentism is true.’ - Con again somehow ignores the fact that I did a proof by cases in R3, in which I supposed both Eternalism & Presentism & concluded in both cases that there exist a God (either according to Model-1 or Model-2). I did not presuppose that either are true. I presupposed however, & for good reason, that Causality is inductively True, & thus Presentism is a more consistent explanation, while Eternalism is not, because its based on SR which is incontestably an incomplete theory. ‘there is nothing any more absurd about there being infinite changes than there is an infinite number of integers’. - Well, I agree, except there is this thing called Causality (or Arrow of Time), which imposes a beginning & consecutive finite successions. Besides, we know the Universe is finite in Time & in Space (as SR postulates). Hence my favouring the Presentist model. - If Con wants to disprove my second statement: ‘Inductively True’ he has to prove that Eternalism is true while all else is false, or at least proves that Causality (or the Arrow of Time) is incoherent or illogical. - Even in such case, one could easily argue that: if Eternalism based on SR is true, then all the Universe’s events are equally present, & thus, all the Universe’s event last, in the present, for 1 Plank Time, which says that the Universe actually lasted for 1 Plank Time. For, the Universe is only eternal within the Spacetime, which does not allow us to conclude on the eternity of Spacetime itself! ‘I could just assert they may be different just as a brute fact' - Here Con provides no argument, as he has been doing so far! - My Argument was simple: if the Essential Existence (EE) was not unique, then the answer to the question: why is it so? only leads to absurd conclusions. - Asserting that there are two different EE as a brute fact, begs the question: where did the difference or the separation come from? & as I demonstrated (proof by cases), the answer to that question is absurd, which was made clear by Con right after his assertion: ‘remember an essential existence is not subject to causation, thus to speak of the causation of these is absurd.’ ‘Pro gives no reason to believe that an essential existence, if coherent and true, has any causal power at all. Why it would indeed render the existence of the universe for example. Remember Pro explicitly defined causality to refer to ‘events’.’ - For the gazillion time, Con confuses the two definitions of causality, which I stated clearly in R3! I am officially sorry, I could not find another word for it. - An Essential Existence had causal power in the sense that it is the agent that makes the difference between what is contingently existent & contingently non-existent. That is because, all else other than the Essential Existence is contingent & thus caused (made) to exist, & the cause of that as I demonstrated in Argument-0 is defined as the Essential Existence. ‘I can just assert the universe exists contingently as a brute fact, and it would be logically consistent. and it would refute the notion that an essential existence is the first cause.’ - Well, if the Universe (as I defined it) exists contingently then it must have been made to exist by the Essential Existence. & that’s exactly what I demonstrated in Argument-0, which again Con seems to ignore. We can reject this entire argument simply by virtue that existence is not a ‘thing’ or an ‘it’. Thus existence is neither contingent nor necessary. Pro needs to clarify what he actually means by ‘existence’ here, as the argument is unintelligible. - Semantics again! (a side I am not very well equipped with in Englih) But, fair enough, the way I studied it: Existence is either used as a Universal entity itself, or as an Attribute added to the Essence, which in real objects: existence would be identical to essence. Chose whichever works for you, either way the argument doesn’t change. - This is not a debate on whether existence is an ‘it’ or not, this is a debate on the necessary existence of something (even if this something turns out to be Existence itself). ‘Pro has given absolutely no reason to believe this philosophy of descartian essentialism is sound. . . A concept of an object is simply just a description of an object, and an object exists without the additional baggage of ‘essence’. . . they only describe the state it is in ‘now’.’ - This is a Strawman Fallacy I was not expecting Con to use! - None of this affects the Argument. The Argument is simply not conditioned by whether objects exist & have a Universal Essence, or are just particulars. - This whole section is utterly obsolete. ‘Thus, we would need to expect very good reasons why an ‘essential existence that is the first cause’ is metaphysically coherent, but ‘an essential existence that is Australia shaped and orbits the moon’ is not.’ - Simple, make the difference between what is Universal & what is Particular, which in any case, doesn’t change my argument. - The rest of Con’s Argument is no argument at all, in which Con trie to argue against R2 without accounting for R3.