God almost certainly exists

I'll give 2 arguments and defend both in depth in order to defend the motion. Argument#1 P1) Anything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external explanation. P2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is grounded in God. P3) The universe exists. P4) Therefore the universe has an explanation for its existence (from 1,3). P5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in God (from 2,4). C) Therefore God exists. Defence of P1 The first premise rests on Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason [1] and seems evident simply by its nature - if you deny that whatever exists has an explanation, then you also deny the study of science, which rests on the notion. It seems that no rational person could assert that things exist with absolutely no explanation whatsoever - it goes against all experience and rational thought. Defence of P2 There are two parts to this premise - first, that the universe has an external explanation, and the second that the explanation is God. The first part is another way of stating 'the universe is not necessarily existent'; as if premise 1 is true, then the universe is either necessarily existent, or has an explanation external to itself. If the universe is not necessarily existent, then it must, by deductive reasoning, have an explanation that is external to it. So the question is, 'why is the universe not necessarily existent? '. Well in order to be necessarily existent, the universe would also have to be changeless. However, this does not appear to be true. All around us, we see the universe changing - from ourselves, the stars or the planets - changing from existent to non-existent and from one state to another. The universe is changing in nature constantly. So this means that the universe cannot be necessary in its existence and instead must be contingent. The second part states that God must be the explaination. This is because the explaination must possess a number of qualities. These include: Necessity; the cause must be necessarily existent. This is because if the external cause is a contingent being, then we immediately go into an regress of causes. This will go on ad infinitum unless we come to a necessarily existent being that explains everything. So in order to explain anything at all, we must arrive at an uncaused, unchangeable, eternal and therefore necessarily existent being. Transcendence; if the being is the external cause of the universe, it must by definition transcend the universe realm. Powerful; in order to create a universe, a being must be extraordinarily powerful beyond human comprehension. These 3 qualities are equivalent to what we call 'God'. [2] Defence of P3 The notion that the universe exists can barely be contested, as we all experience it around us through our senses. Defence of P4 If the principle of sufficient reason is true - that everything that exists has an explanation for it's existence - and also that the universe exists, then it logically follows that the universe, and existing entity, has an explanation for its existence. Defence of P5 If the notions given in both premise 2 - that if the universe has an explanation for its existence then it is God - and also premise 4 - that the universe has an explanation for its existence - are true, then it logically follows that God is the explanation for the universe's existence. Defence of C If God is the explaination of the universe, then God must exist by definition. Argument#2 P1) If objective morals exist, then God exists P2) Objective morals exist C) Therefore God exists Defence of P1 The reasoning behind this is that if objective morals - that is, morals that are genuinely binding, regardless of human opinion - exist, then there must be a transcendent giver of these morals. If there is no such giver, then such objectiveness could not exist, as there would be no basis for their objectivity. They wouldn't mean anything except as a subjective accident of natural processes. However, if they mean more than that - if they are objective, then there has to be a grounding for their being. There has to be a source as to why they are objective rather than subjective. In other words, if objective morals exist, then there must be a grounder of such morals. This grounder must be the source of all morality, wholly good, and transcendent to the human realm - that is, 'God'. Defence of P2 Here, it is best to appeal to human experience. Also, it is important to distinguish between absolutism and objectivism. Absolute morals are those which are either 'good' or 'bad' independent of context or consequence. However, objective morals are those which are 'good' or 'bad' regardless of opinion; and that is what I argue for. I'll argue in 2 respects: 1)human moral experience Every day, we humans act as if objective morals exist. When we see another person, we know innately that killing them and stealing their wallet is morally abominable. Similarly, we know intrinsically that we should hug and show compassion to our family as opposed to stabbing and killing them. Note, that under moral subjectivism, there would be no ontological difference between what we consider 'good' and 'bad' actions. However, it appears that there is. It's opposite - moral objectivism - must therefore prevail 2) human moral reasoning The idea is that if humans don't see a moral action to be the categorical imperative - that is, wish it to be universal law - then they won't act by it. Humans will only act in accordance to a moral law, provided they view it to be univerally, as opposed to locally binding. After all, there is no reason to act according to a moral law if it is not genuinely and universally binding. However, humans do act according to moral laws. All around us, we see citizens of the world acting in compassion, in mercy and in justice, despite it having no obvious societal benefit or cost thereof. The best explanation of this phenomena is that there really are objectively binding moral values, and that humans act in accordance to them. [2] [3] [4] Defence of C The conclusion 'God exists' logically follows from the first two premises. If both the premises 'if objective morals exist then God exists', and 'objective morals exist' are both true, then God must also exist by rule of logical inference. Conclusion So, I have presented 2 argument and defended their premises. Together, if sound, they prove the existence of a being that is necessary, hugely powerful, transcendent, wholly good, and the source of moral authority. This being is in essence, the God of classical theism. Over to you Con. Sources: [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... . http://www.revue-klesis.org... [3] . http://www2.drury.edu... [4] . http://plato.stanford.edu...