God probably exists

Hey Con Rebuttal The point you make is that the law of the conservation of energy means that God couldn't create the universe per se. However, I think this is wrong on two counts: firstly, I misunderstands the first law of thermodynamics, and secondly, it misunderstands the concept of God. This is because the conservation of matter and energy only applies to a closed system. [1] Were God to create matter or energy, it would by definition not be in an isolated system; for it is creating the isolated system, not acting within it. In other words, the law of conservation only applies to matter or energy having been created, not applying to matter or energy being created in itself. Moreover, it is important to consider that the nature of God makes the objection redundant. God is transcendent to the natural world. [2] Natural laws do not apply to him nor his actions. As such, the law of the conservation cannot apply to him nor his actions either, so can act without contradicting natural laws. Regardless, even if the notion is true, it still does not impact on the existence of God. There is no reason to think that the God of classical theism couldn't be a sort of Aristotelian Prime Mover, causing the universe to exist from pre-existent material like an artist, rather than creating ex nihilo - in which case, God can certainly exist without impacting on the laws of thermodynamics. My argument My argument is as follows: 1) Everything which exists must have a prior efficient cause of its existence 2) An infinite regression of efficient causes is impossible 3) In order to explain why anything at all exists, there must therefore be an uncaused, first cause, which we call 'God'. [3] (With "efficient cause" being: "the agent that brings something into being" [4]) Defence of 1) Premise 1 is evident due to both inductive reasoning and logical impossibility of the opposite. Inductive reasoning shows that every observed, existing being has an efficient cause to its being. Nothing in the history of observance has come into being without an efficient cause - so, it is only rational to conclude the truth of the premise. This is also logically true, because of 2 reasons. Firstly, ex nihilo nihil fit - out of nothing, nothing comes. If there is nothing to be the efficient cause of a being, then nothing can come into being, either. If there is no cause, then there is no effect. Secondly, if the efficient cause of a being were itself, then it would have to exist prior to itself, which is a logical impossibility. Therefore, everything has an efficient cause to its being that is not itself. Defence of 2) The reason why an infinite regress of causes is impossible is due to how it cannot be traversed, or actualized. To give an analogy, if you were to travel to an infinitely distant point in space, it wouldn't just take them a long time to get there - the reality is, you would never get there, as no matter how long you have been travelling for, an infinite part of the journey would still remain. You would never arrive at the destination. So, infinity, in a series of events at least, cannot exist. The same is therefore with causes; as you could never explain anything, as an infinite amount of causes have to be explained. We must therefore arrive at an uncaused, first cause that needs no further explanation. Defence of 3) God's existence must follow from 1) and 2). Because if everything which exists has an efficient cause, and there is also no infinite regress of causes, then there must be an uncaused first cause which is the cause of everything else. This has to exist if anything is to be explained. This is equivalent to God as the creator and sustainer of the universe. Over to you Con Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.openbible.info... [3] http://web.mnstate.edu... [4] http://www.aquinasonline.com...