God Is Existent

Contention 1: Occam's Razor Occam's Razor sides with the group that makes the least assumptions. We can see that the universe having a maker and creating everything is a lesser assumption than the universe being created out of nothing at some point. (though I thought I already argued this in an earlier contention) We can argue this actually by two ways, first is that of the Ontological Argument which I'll get into a bit later or arguing that God is A priori and even a posteriori. Meaning that he was already existing revealing that God has always existed and that he's pre-argumentation. Remember that I'll further argue this in my Ontological Argument EXCEPT for the Anslem's Ontological Argument. [1] A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don’t need empirical evidence to know that it’s true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily. A statement is a posteriori = our evidence for its truth is empirical, or based on data that we receive via sense experience. 1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being. 2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds. 3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world. 4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world. 5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible” is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory. 6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. [2]Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile. For example, you argue that God and his mind contradict, but it is unlikely. How we come to this conclusion is ironically provided by your own argumentation. You see God is outside of time and this relm, but since he also does things in this relm then spacetime becomes a factor. So we can see that everything can exist outside of the relm of spacetime, but once it comes on to this plane then it is affected as his own actions and words are in the Bible and we can see that this is obvious and thus by this own argumentation that God can exist. Once again we can see that through Neil Tyson's theory on Black Hole Universes that it is highly possible for God to exist elsewhere and for the Universe to exist before itself. We can also see by observing the Big Bang-Big Crunch timeline that the universe also could have easily existed before itself as the Big Crunch shows the universe shrinking back down to a singularity and then exploding back out into that of another Big Bang. [3] Contention 2: Ontological ArgumentFirst to respond to the possible argument, one can see that this counts for all worlds possible meaning that all that exist. Due to this and we've seen this from the above Anslem Argument that God has to exist under this circumstance as no matter what there will always be a Maximumly Great being which also refutes the reverse premise. We can see that it would be highly unlikely for him to not exist as God would have to exist seeing that there would always be some Maximumly Great Being out there. On the matter of proving God by doing mathematics we can see that this is indeed possible as Scientist Godel has actually given the following proofs for God and they just so happen to fall under this contention.Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positiveDefinition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails BDefinition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplifiedAxiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positiveAxiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positiveAxiom 3: The property of being God-like is positiveAxiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positiveAxiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property [4]Axiom 4 has been stated that it must be necessary and is possible to point out the good in all things. Godel himself had stated that, "Postitive means that in a positive moral aestetics sense. It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation." [5] The other Axioms can be summed up to be an ultrafilter which I'll get into a little later on. The Axioms can be translated into the following theorums and math equation. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. [6]Now we can see that this mathematical equation was actually done and proven. With it being solved we can see that it brings up great and highly valid evidence that God exists. People used the above theorums and axioms through the use of LEO-II and Statallax. Contention 3: KCAFirst I would like to provide a causation argument. 1. Premise A: Every cause was either caused or uncaused (Null Hypothesis) 2. Premise B: There is a finite number of past causes. 3. Let n be the number of past causes and let C be the set of all causes that ever existed: c1, c2, c3 ... cn 4. Now choose any cause cx from the set of causes C. Using Recursive process 5. Does cause cx have at least one preceding cause causing it? 6. If the answer is no, then cx is an uncaused cause. End of proof 7. If the answer is yes, then cx has at least one preceding cause causing it 8. Let cy be any of the causes that caused cx 9. Remove cx from the set of all causes C. Now the size of C will be reduced by 1 10. Now make cx = cy and repeat steps 5 to 10 The recursive process will loop until either: a. An uncaused cause is found in step 5; or b. After a maximum of n-1 iterations, the size of set C will become 1. At that point, there's only one cause left in the set. There are absolutely no other causes available that can cause it. Therefore, this single cause must be an uncaused cause. End of proof. Conclusion: The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause. There's no escape. This is called the Pool Table argument because one could argue that it’s possible to know where each ball in a pool game will end up being, and could be traced backwards. The problem is that it’s impossible to know what the white ball would do or how it would be hit. For my opponent to refute my argument, he must either challenge my premises or challenge the validity of my logic. My opponent may argue that Premise B that "there's a finite number of past causes" is not necessarily true. In order to keep this discussion concise, I would like to first ask my opponent if he agrees that there can only exist a finite number of past events. If he disagrees, I will show in the next round why this premise is true. Now that I proved that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause, let's examine some of the properties of an uncaused cause: 1. An uncaused cause must have behaved in a certain way that's not predetermined. Such a cause couldn't have been naturally caused! 2. The cause acted freely. If it wasn't free, then what made it act this way? The answer is nothing. 3. A cause that acted freely must have some form of intelligence. By intelligence I don't mean cleverness, but I mean a being with the ability to apply knowledge and skills [source #]. An unnatural, free and intelligent cause is definitely best explained by the God hypothesis.My opponent begs the question of God's preexistance, but I've already shown that the Life of the Universe can show precausation and Neil Tyson's theory also helps here. Since I'm short on characters I need to get to the last contention. I will have to refute the zero energy universe next round. This opening part was already refuted when I have shown that the laws of physics can be broken due to Kugelblitzs and even when we look at the opening moments of the Big Bang and even black holes we can see that the laws of Physics become broken down meaning that there is some missing key part that is included here in this part and it is simply that of God. [7] [8]Contention 4: TA ArgumentMy opponent states that it's subjective but he yet actually does anything to refute this argument. We can see that teleos can be based from anything, but since God is the sole creater of the universe everything is to please him and hence we have teleos. (Sorry running out of Character space will refute better next round)