The Statement 'God Exists' is Rationally Justifiable.

I extend my thanks to Con & I apologise for not being able to do my part in time, an old friend came to visit me last night from another city & he is now staying with me. & so, I have been struggling to find the time to write enough, so as to allow Con to formulate his arguments. Existence = Attribute subsequent to which an entity exists, & without which it doesn’t. Essence = Attribute through which an entity is itself, & without which it isn’t. Universe = ensemble of existent entities. Eg. a Circle has the quality of being a circular, therefore, the essence of a circle is its circular form. But a Circle does not exist unless existence was attributed to it. Event = caused entity, or existent entity. Cause = a Cause of an entity B is a necessary event A without which B isn’t an Event. Effect = B is an effect of A is equivalent to: A is the cause of B. Argument: 1 Existence is necessary to itself, otherwise it wouldn’t be. Therefore, an Essential (necessary) Existence is necessary. The Existence of the Universe either is the Essential Existence, or isn’t. In case it isn’t, then it necessitates an Essential Existence. In both cases, the Essential Existence is the Uncaused First Cause, as per the definition. An Essential Existence can not necessitate its non-existence, non-contradiction. Therefore, an Essential Existence is True unconditionally (‘eternal’), & thus non-Contingent. Argument: 2 The Existence of the Universe is either eternal or not, in case it isn’t, then it can not be the Essential Existence, as per the last point. In case it is, then: - If the Universe is ever changing then it must change from one dynamic state to a distinct other or to a static state indefinitely. Thus, the sum of its states can not be infinite, otherwise for any given real state there will have been an infinite changes happening before that state, & subsequently the said state wouldn’t exist, absurd! (same thing can be done by taking any random series of Events in the Universe). Therefore, the Universe in this case can not be eternal. - If the Universe is not ever changing, then it must have been static eternally before it changed. In that case, if the Existence of the Universe is the Essential Existence, then what caused the existence of change? If the Existence of the Universe generated the change, & it alone is the Essential Existence & thus the change isn’t. Therefore, after the change & since only the essentially existent static eternal Universe is the Essential Existence, the changing Universe isn’t the Essential Existence. If the Existence of the Universe din’t cause the existence of change, then there must be an Essential Existence. => In all cases, the changing Universe can not be Essential Existence. Argument: 3 The Essential Existence is Singular. Otherwise for two (or more) Essential Existences & therefore mutually independent, if they are identical, then they are Singular, in case they aren’t identical then what caused the existence of change? It can’t be either of the two, thus there must be a third Essential Existence, & in that case, the two aren’t really Essential Existences, absurd! Argument: 4 The Essential Existence render existing what was priorly not. Therefore, explaining inductively (abductively) Existence is impossible, since the Law of Causality is invalidated: or every event A there is a NO - inductively - necessary event B, such that, if B then A. Time’s up. Sorry :'( . . ;