The Existence of God

Cosmological Argument An infinite regression of incidents of change in reality is impossible. You must be able to trace through the incidents of change in reality to find the First Principle. The First Principle must have been actionless at some point before it began the chain of incidents of change in reality. Therefore, the First Principle must either be a natural mechanism, or it must be God. Con said: "What I'm arguing here is not that quantum mechanics puts an absolute end to premise one, but that premise one isn't justified."What I am really arguing here is not cause and effect, but change itself. Change is the act or instance of making or becoming different. You cannot have an infinite regression of changes in reality, the totality of existence. This is impossible, this simply cannot be. So this means that when you make it to the First Principle, you find the creator of all that is.Can Con argue for an infinite regression of incidents of change in reality? No. He must argue as to why the First Principle is a natural mechanism.Sentience The First Principle may either be a natural mechanism, or God. The only thing capable of changing reality as we see it in our universe is a sentient mind. The idea of the First Principle being a natural mechanism begs the question: Why? Why change reality so much to bring about what we have today? Why not sit still and simply be? A machine must either be manually started or programmed to start on its own. The First Principle being a natural mechanism, is unlikely to have up and started itself for no apparent reason. It was either started, or it was programmed to start. A natural mechanism is not truly capable of sitting still, of ceasing change, without a cause. Everything about a natural mechanism begs the question as to what caused it to begin, because it is not sentient and self-aware, it would suggest that something outside of itself caused it to start, leading to the problem of infinity. Therefore the First Principle being God is more plausible. Con said: "One problem with this is, things like snow flake change by natural means. Other things like Crystal come naturally. Premise 1 is completely false, a mind isn’t needed in the creation of these things."Well. Yes. But that has little to do with the example I gave. Only a thinking mind can create and change reality as it is to something else entirely. Nothing else can create in this way. This makes it more plausible that God is the First Principle. That the First Principle is a mind that can change reality as it is currently, which at that instance would have been nothing more than the First Principle, to something much more.Natural MechanismCon said: "1. Why can't this natural cause be going through different complex reactions infinity? There would be no need for a choice because the universe would be a result of one reaction."This simply begs the question: Why? What caused it to begin this chain reaction of incidents of change after change until we have what we have now?Also, there cannot be an infinite regression of incidents of change. There must be a First Principle that began the change, but to begin the change is an act that requires a reason. For the natural mechanism to simply begin the changes in reality for no reason makes no sense. It makes you think that something outside of it started this natural mechanism. There is just too much of begging the question.Epistemological IssueCon wants to believe that inquiring about what was before the Big Bang is meaningless. Then why challenge me to a debate where this inquiry is necessary?Con said: "Our understanding is because of the Universe around us. We can reason because we observe the Universe around us and come up with things like causality." Yes, exactly my point of sentience. We can reason because of the universe around us, we can see signs in the universe, a reflection of the First Principle. And unless Con would like to contest this, the greatest achievement in the universe is the sentient, self-aware mind. In the Qur'an, God tells us many times to look for evidence in His creation, to look for signs in the universe.Con said right after: "However, to apply our understanding outside the Universe, by using the understanding that we obtained by the Universe itself would be fallacious."Why? Why would it be fallacious? We only know what we know about quantum mechanics because of observing the universe.MoralityI'll concede to Con on this. But he would most certainly have to concede that the power behind religious objective morality is changeless, truly objective. To be honest, people without God can have morals, however they will never have objective morals, timeless morals that are universal. Morality would be decided by the majority of society.Problem of EvilThis is where Con should concede, and I'll show you why. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. A perfectly good being would allow his creation to have the potential for free will. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would not prevent the existence of that evil, for that prevents free will. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, who created the universe with the potential for free will, then evil exists. Free will and evil exists. Here is the problem with the problem of evil. It's not a problem. Why? Because to take away all evil is to take away free will. People can no longer make the choice to steal, murder, rape and perform many other acts of evil. And to take away the many natural disasters that occur simply because people die, would mean to completely distort the way in which the universe works. In order for Con to make any ground with this argument, he would have to show how the universe can be as authentic as it is now, without these natural disasters. But the explanation about free will and the evils of people is sound. Plainly put, evil is a necessity for the intention of the universe, because don't forget, traditional Theism holds that God will test us, and you can't really do that without free will in the mix.Argument from Temporal Minds Why is temporal duration a requirement for mental processing? I really don't see here how a functioning atemporal mind cannot exist. A mind is a mind. I would theorize that God is pure intellect, pure mind. But the power behind the mind of God compared to the power behind the mind of a human is very, very great. The mind of God would be capable of so much more than the average mind.The "Because I said so" ArgumentCon said: "I don't have space to post my full response, but I will ask you this. If you're always right, then is the statement “This statement is false” true?"Everything I say is correct and true. If you mean by statement as your entire argument, then yes, that statement is false. It is true, however, that Magic8000 and I are the best of friends. He has always looked up to me as his mentor, as his role model. Never before has he ever met a man quite like me, and never will he. Because I said so, so shall it be taken as fact.