The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1K

I thank TheSkeptic for creating another forum for this topic and look forward to a rigorous and edifying debate. I am first and foremost arguing for a personal creator of this universe. However, to keep this debate interesting, I will do extra credit to also show that the personal creator is in fact the Christian God. Since the Christian God is complex and not adequately reduced to a mere four adjectives, I offer the Westminster Confession of Faith [1], which is arguably one of the most complete descriptions of the Biblical God. Since TheSkeptic and I are known to get long winded in our defenses and rebuttals, I am going to stick with this one argument for God's existence, an extension of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. This premise needs little defense given the absurdity of something coming from nothing. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence of anything in this universe coming into existence from nothing. My opponent might appeal to quantum particle pair production as one such scientific example (particles being created and destroyed at random). However, this turns out to be a conversion between energy and matter, thus we still have something coming from something. I will leave my argument brief on this point and await my opponent's response. P2. The universe began to exist. It is impossible to have an actual infinite of something. While something like the universe is indefinite--that is, it may grow indefinitely--it does not follow that it is infinite or can even be infinite. The notion of an actual infinite is logically absurd. In an actual infinite, you could add and remove things to the set and the set would not change. It would be the same as saying, "I've added more, and it's the same. Then I removed a lot more than I originally added, and it was still the same." If a set grows when thing are added, then it is not infinite even if it is quite large. Likewise, if a set is infinite, then it already encompasses everything and cannot be modified. Science also strongly supports this premise. The universe is expanding, as first discovered by the red shifts in the stars. [2] Thermodynamics and the discovery of dark energy remove further doubt; the universe will continue to expand until heat death is reached. [3] The expansion of the universe implies that the universe is not eternal, since an eternal universe would necessarily be at a state of equilibrium. C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. If whatever begins to exist has a cause (P1) and the universe began to exist (P2), then the universe has a cause. P3. The first cause must be eternal. As argued in P1, there cannot be an actual infinite, so there cannot be an infinite number of effects in time. Therefore, even if my opponent were to argue that the universe was begat by another temporal object, he would simply be appealing to another event. The only way to rationally stop the regression is to assert that this universe, directly or indirectly, was caused by an uncaused entity. Since causes and effect are by definition temporal, any uncaused entity would necessarily be eternal. P4. All eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal. An eternal cause would be one of two things: teleological (personal/intelligent) or non-teleological (mechanical). The non-teleological option can be eliminated as the cause of the universe because a non-teleological entity is by definition dead and inoperative. An eternal object MUST be in equilibrium; it is logically contradictory to assert an eternal object that is changing. Remember, change is only logically valid within the context of time. Thus, a dead eternal entity is incapable of causing anything, much less the temporal effects of space-time as we know it. A teleological eternal agent on the other hand can fit the definition of equilibrium and still create temporal effects. A personal agent implies an agent with a will. It is logically possible for an eternal personal agent to freely choose to create effects in time without necessitating change in its own properties. Since the same cannot be said for non-teleological eternal entities, we are left to conclude that any eternal cause of a temporal effect must be intelligent. C2. The universe was caused by a personal creator. If the universe has a cause (C1), and the cause must be eternal (P3), then the universe has an eternal cause. If the universe has an eternal cause and all eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal (P4), then the universe must have been caused by a personal agent. At this point, I have offered enough evidence to assert the existence of personal creator. But in the interest of education, I shall take my argument further. P5. Given a personal creator, miracles are logically possible. Once a personal creator is established, it is logically permissible for that creator to intervene in this universe in the form of miracles, events that defy the constraints of the universe. Such intervention does not necessitate a change in the eternal being, nor does it invalidate the set laws of this universe. This premise is straight forward, so I'll leave it to The Skeptic to rebut this point as he sees fit and defend it as needed. P6. The personal creator probably intervened in this universe by resurrecting Christ Given the historical reliability of the Bible [4], we can conclude that the stories regarding Jesus Christ are testimonies of real witnesses. The question is not so much whether or not these witnesses were confused or ignorant about what they saw. The real debate is whether or not these witnesses were deceived or liars. However, any theories regarding Christ either faking his death or the resurrection being a scam are easily refuted by the behavior of the witnesses following the event. Given the validity of miracles and the testimony of so many witnesses, it is parsimonious to accept that the Gospel is probably describing a real event. There is much to be said on this point for sure, but I do not have the room to elaborate much further. I am merely offering a summary of my arguments here and will await my opponent's rebuttal before expanding on this premise further. C3. The personal creator of this universe is probably Christian God. If the personal creator can intervene in the form of miracles (P5) and the miracle of the Resurrection probably occurred (P6), then the Bible is probably the revelation of this universe's personal creator. In which case, the creator of this universe is probably the Christian God. CONCLUSION Even if I am unsuccessful in showing the existing of the Christian God as probable, I have logically shown that there does exist in the very least a personal creator with the capability of creating this universe. This should sufficiently meet TheSkeptic's generic definition of God. SOURCES 1. http://www.reformed.org... 2. http://skyserver.sdss.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.leaderu.com...