The Existence of God

The Cosmological ArgumentI committed no straw man here. All that I did was make clear and establish that there must be a First Principle in reality where everything came from. So after having regressed back through each and every change in reality till you come to the First Principle, you must decide whether or not this First Principle is God or a natural mechanism. An infinite regression of change in reality is impossible. After regressing back through each incident of change in reality, you come to the First Principle where all change began. The First Principle must either be a natural mechanism, or God. You no longer regress back any further when you reach the First Principle. The debate then comes down to whether or not this First Principle is God or a natural mechanism.Con said: "If a regress is impossible then how did God create the universe? In order to get to the point of creation, we have to pass an eternity with God. Pro must make a special exception for God, but then something else could fit other than God."The special exception is made for both God and the natural mechanism. But that's the point I am making, a natural mechanism doesn't suffice for the First Principle, only a sentient, self-aware God could suffice for this First Principle. Both God or the natural mechanism would be eternal.SentienceCon said: "What exactly do you define “change” as? Aren’t the things I listed changing reality?"Change is defined as the act or instance of making or becoming different.Con said: "Technically only physical things can change reality. A mind in and of itself can’t change anything except what goes on in its own mind. A mind still needs something physical to change. Try to type your next argument using solely your mind and nothing else. You still need physical arms and hands to do it."Here he misunderstands what I am saying. The mind is not physical, and the mind of God would be omnipotent, all powerful.The entire point of my analogy is that only in our minds can change of reality, though only in our minds, take place. The sun cannot think or imagine of a reality different to what we have, only sentient beings can actually imagine and create worlds, realities, outside of what we have today.I would like to see Con show me something else which can imagine a reality different to our own other than the sentient, self-aware mind.Natural MechanismCon said: "What caused God? Where did he come from? What caused God to create the universe?"Nothing caused God, nor the natural mechanism. And both have simply existed. That is what I have been saying. After you have regressed back in time through each incident of change in reality, you come to the First Principle, that point in reality before we have reality as it is today.As far as what caused God or the natural mechanism to create the universe, that is where my argument about sentience comes into play. Because it wouldn't quite make sense for a natural mechanism to simply exist, and then suddenly make such dramatic changes in reality as we see today. Only with a sentient mind can the choice of making change in reality in the first place happen.Con has to show me how it would be logical for a natural mechanism to have just existed, and at one point, have been motionless, not causing change in reality. A natural mechanism would simply do what it is meant to do. It doesn't think or have the ability inside itself to imagine a reality different to its own.God however, is a sentient, self-aware being. Capable of making that initial choice of changing reality, the totality of existence. As a sentient, self-aware being, God can choose to simply not change reality, and merely enjoy the bliss of His existence. I am arguing that it makes more sense that the First Principle is God, and not a natural mechanism. It's Con's duty to show me how a natural mechanism would make more sense than a sentient, self-aware God.Epistemological IssueThe entire point of this debate is about what was before the universe. Con is trying to simply wave this away, when it is the point of the entire debate.The many religions that serve God, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and the rest are all considered to be Divinely Revealed messages to mankind. Your analogy would make sense if this debate were not about what was before the universe, and if these religions that surround the concept of God were not considered Divinely Revealed.This debate is about the existence of God. And it will always come to what was before the universe, about things which we have very little factual knowledge of, that we can prove without a doubt. Because most religions that promote the idea of a sentient, self-aware God are considered to be Divinely Revealed, that is, messages sent down to us from God, we must debate about this unknown.MoralityThe point I was making is that morality without God is not changeless, eternal. It all comes down to the majority of society deciding what is morally right and wrong, and this is subject to change, always.The "Because I said so" ArgumentMy mind just exploded.The Problem of EvilCon said: "First, Pro asserts we have free will. If Pro wants to have a free will defense, he must prove that free will exists in the first place. From what I’ve studied, you can’t make sense of free will philosophically or scientifically."Did you or did you not choose to create this debate and challenge me? Are you going to suggest that you didn't make the choice to partake in this debate?Free Will means: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.Con has to show me how we are not acting without constraint of necessity or fate, how we do not have the ability to act at our own discretion.But in all reality, there is evidence for both sides. Because I assume the position that Free Will exists, then my argument still stands, my reasoning behind the problem of evil still stands.Con went on to say: "Second, why couldn't God make man in such a way that he would always freely choose good? If God is omnipotent he would be able to do such a thing. Don’t we all commit sin because our nature is flawed? Do we have the free will to never sin? Why couldn’t God make it so we always choose good in the same way that we sin."Well. Think about it. It is free will, sentience, being self-aware and capable of choosing your own path that is indeed the greatest creation in the universe, unless you want to contest this. God has free will, so it naturally follows that He would create the universe with the potential for it.And then Con goes into asking about evil in heaven and the like. That really doesn't pertain to the debate. But I suppose I would argue that we would have the ability, but would be stopped by the grace of God, possibly an overwhelming pressure upon us to not do it. Not to mention that there will be Angels in heaven, which could just as easily stop us. And lets not forget that when you make it to heaven, all is made clear, and you most certainly would not want to sin in such close proximity to God, the Angels, and all of the beloved Prophets.Con continues.How would the Earth be different if there were not volcanic eruptions and all of the like? This really doesn't deserve a response. The Earth is shaped the way it is due to many of these natural disasters. These natural disasters are apart of the making of the planet.Just because you know everything, doesn't mean you don't create. An African woman in the Congo knows that by having children, she may very well have a daughter, and in doing so, will possibly subject her baby girl to a very harsh life full of abuse and rape, yet still does it. I would say this is where God's love comes into play, where He wants to gift us with life itself, instead of just keeping us from existing and ever experiencing it.Argument from Temporal MindsGod transcends all, even time. I don't have enough character space to refute this.