God Exists

Opening Argument Before I begin my arguments, I would like to thank Con for allowing me to debate this topic, I will do my best to defend and prove the existence of my God. My opponent refuted both the KCA,and the intelligent design argument. I will however be referring to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, and the Law of Thermodynamics Argument in round one. The Principal of Sufficient Reason The Principal of Sufficient reason is the age old argument that nothing is without a ground reason of why it is. For every X entity, if X exists, then there is a sufficient reason for why X exists. In our case, this X entity is the universe as a whole. Imagine you found a small toy car in the middle of the desert. You may not know why that car is there, but you know that there had to be some force, be it human, the wind, etc. that put that toy where it is. Now imagine that toy car is the size of an actual car, it still needs a reason for why it’s there, right? Now imagine that car is the size of the universe, it still must have an explanation. So no matter what size an object is, be it the toy car or the universe, there must be an explanation for its existence, or why it is there. Keep in mind, the Principal of Sufficient Reason does not prove there is a God, but it does help to prove why the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is true. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (PSR) If the universe has an explanation of itsexistence, that explanation is God. The universe exists. Therefore, the universe has an explanation ofits existence. (from 1, 3) Therefore, the explanation of the existence ofthe universe is God. (from 2, 4) Warrant for Premise One The warrant for Premise one is just a simple restatement ofthe Principle of Sufficient Reason. Warrant for Premise Two Two is the logical equivalent to what atheists often affirmthat if atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence. Forthe transcendent cause must be immaterial, and there are two things which fitsuch a description: abstract objects or Minds. But abstract objects don’t standin causal relations, they don't fit our criteria for existence, hence the causeof the universe must be an ultra-mundane mind. The universe clearly exists, sotherefore it follows logically that the universe has an explanation, thatexplanation being God. Next.. Argument Based on the Law of Thermodynamics According to the Conservation of Energy Law,under the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be destroyed, orcreated. Since energy cannot be created, theoretically, thereshould be no Universe. If there is a Universe, then there must havebeen an outside force that doesn’t have to follow the laws of thermodynamics. Thatinfluence had to be God. Therefore, God exists. In order to keep the law of Conservation of Energy valid,there is only one other possible explanation and that is that the Universe iseternal. This cannot be the case however, according to the 2nd lawof thermodynamics. According to the 2nd Law ofThermodynamics, the Universe has a limited supply of energy that it can expend. Thus, the Universe is finite. If the Universe is finite, then the energy hasto have come into being without conflicting with the first or second laws ofThermodynamics. That force could have only been God. Therefore, God exists. I will await Con’s rebuttal to see what additional argumentsneed to be madeThank You Readershttp://bibowen.hubpages.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...