God exists

Introduction In order to prove God’s existence, I will show that reality is a self-referential system and why this implies it possesses attributes which correspond to the definition of God. That is, I will attempt to prove that reality = God. I will also present and defend an argument closely related to the Ontological Argument. And last, I will resolve some paradoxes associated with the God concept. Accomplishing this will require a rather deep investigation into the fundamental nature of existence, so some of it may get a bit technical. I will try to explain my arguments in the simplest and most direct terms possible, but readers of the debate should expect to think in ways they are probably not used to. One of the main problems facing the God concept is the seemingly unanswerable question: why should a God exist? That is, on what basis is God’s existence implied or logically supported? Answers to this question have typically come in the following form: the universe needs a cause/explanation, and God is the only thing capable of providing it. However, this merely begs the question. What allows God to be uncaused but not the universe? What is the fundamental difference between the two permitting this interpretation? Rather than defending this view, I will attack it, maintaining that God and the universe are the same, and that God - reality - is self-caused rather than uncaused.Creation Ex NihiloIf you really start out with nothing, then there is no preexisting information. There is nothing to limit the nature of nothingness, as constraint does not yet exist. In other words, nothingness cannot stay nothingness, as there is nothing to enforce requirements of any kind. This implies that “nothingness” is not actually nothingness - as that would require constraint - but unbound potential or unlimited freedom. One may be tempted to object to the very notion of nothingness, and claim that nothingness is an inherently contradictory concept beyond discussion. But this is a bit hard to figure, for if nothingness is well enough defined to be contradicted by considering it, it is well enough defined to consider it in the first place. Moreover, contradictions only have to be avoided within the context of existence. Non-existence lacks intrinsic definition, and is therefore a suitable (and in fact, necessary) place to dump the contradictions which existence avoids and which is tautologically defined on the exclusion of. This is what gives logic its discernibility and meaning. Since we were never really dealing with nothingness to begin with, but with UBT (unbound telesis or “pre-information”), a realm of pure freedom characterized by a total lack of any real constraint, possibilities with the intrinsic capacity to define and maintain their own existences can actualize themselves. The possibility of God simply self-actualizes from this sea of ontological potential. All lesser possibilities are precluded, for God supersedes them by definition, either containing them or excluding them from reality (himself). Now let us consider what attributes such an entity must logically possess.God’s attributes Reality contains all and only that which is real. Reality is thus self-contained, as anything real enough to affect reality is already real and thus inside reality. This means that any cause of reality must be real, implying that reality is either self-caused or uncaused. A cause is an explanation, and an explanation is identification of structure - what is. For example, the cause of a car crash amounts to an explanation of what happened (e.g. the driver was tired, going too fast, etc), and the explanation amounts to an identification of the structure of the system - reality - in which the event took place. Since reality contains all and only that which is real, it must have structure, for if it didn’t, then entities outside reality could be incorporated in real structures and processes; but in that case they would be real, and thus inside reality. This contradiction implies that reality is ultimately closed with respect to all real relations and operations, including the definition operation as applied to reality itself. Indeed, without structure - that is, without definition - reality could not maintain an identity (could not distinguish itself from unreality i.e. that which it is not) and would disintegrate due to internal inconsistencies. Since reality does indeed exist, it must have structure. Since reality itself is real, it too must have an explanation. That is, since reality’s structure is real, its structure implicates itself, implying that reality causes itself to exist. In other words, reality comprises a “closed descriptive manifold” from which no essential predicate is omitted, and which thus contains no critical gap that leaves any essential aspect of structure unexplained. Any such gap would imply non-closure. But this explanation is incomplete unless reality can also answer the question of why it causes itself to exist i.e. what causes reality to cause itself? Reality is thus self-justifying as well as self-determinative. Essentially, existence is everywhere the choice to exist. Objective morality is therefore “what reality thinks is right” insofar as real and objective are synonymous. It takes very little effort to see that what God does is what God thinks is right (since he is self-determinative), and therefore his actions coincide with - that is, define - objective morality. Now, if reality were reducible to it parts, this would make God - Who coincides with the universe itself - a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But since the mutual consistency of parts requires a single self-configuring imperative, one moral standard is implied. Essentially, God is the principle of consistency, the principle of cohesion, which holds us all together. So far, we have established God as omnipotent (because coherently self-determinative), omnibenevolent (because self-justifying) omnipresent (because synonymous with reality) and monotheistic (because self-consistent). But what about omniscience? It comes down to this: since reality is both a mental construct (isomorphic to its description) and the objective content of such a construct, and since reality is all and only that which real, it must process its own information coherently...in a way that involves no contradictions. Thus, God embodies the answers to all questions that have a basis in reality. Since reality has nothing but itself with which to do this, it cannot rely on blunt mechanisms. It must intrinsically define itself to be infinitely intelligent in order to self-actualize. Reality is a mind, and “God” is simply the answer to the question “whose mind”? Ontological Argument Denying that something exists isn't something which can be taken for granted. When you deny that something exists, you are implicitly claiming that there exists constraint external to the thing in question - since it doesn't exist - which prevents it from existing. However, God's definition doesn't allow for such an interpretation. That is, when you deny the existence of "God", you aren't denying the existence of God, but something that is bound by something external to it (which doesn't fit the definition of God). This implies that God’s existence is self-evident, and therefore logically necessary. While it may be tempting to use this argument to prove the existence of other things, it only works for God, since it essentially establishes whatever you prove the existence of as God. That is, whatever you prove must exist, and is therefore entirely self-determinative since its existence is contigent upon nothing but itself. The Problem of Evil Meaning: How do we reconcile the fact that evil exists with the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and maximally good being? I would like to start out by saying this point is not necessary for meeting my BoP. Although it would be nice to think humans are implicated in God’s moral standard, it isn’t required. Obviously, the highest level of change is that characterizing the creation of reality. Prior to the moment of creation, the universe was not there; afterwards, the universe was there. This represents a sizable change indeed! Unfortunately, it also constitutes a sizable paradox. If the creation of reality was a real event, and if this event occurred in cosmic time, then cosmic time itself is real. But then cosmic time is an aspect of reality and can only have been created with reality. This implies that cosmic time, and in fact reality, must have created themselves! In other words, the creation event is distributed over time. In this sense, God is timeless. What does this mean for humans? Basically, it means we are caught in the moment of creation. Since God is self-contained, he must self-select from an internally generated set of possibilities, providing himself with a "self-simulative scratchpad" on which to compare the aggregate utility of multiple self-configurations for self-optimization purposes. That is, we are living in a self-simulation within the mind of God. Since reality necessarily operates with inherent freedom, and since humans are themselves parts of reality, God can endow his sentient agents with a certain amount of freedom to effect states from a localized vantage i.e. from within time. God can then exclude possibilities which do not meet his selection-selection criterion, ensuring that they “never existed” except as possibilities. I'm out of characters, so I will address the omnipotence paradox next round.Thank you for your kind attention.