"There is reason to believe a God exists"

Because Science can only focus on natural processes and Theology merely assumes the existence of a "God" I shall philosophical arguments as my "evidence" for the existence of God. Mind you some of my arguments may infuse science within them but nevertheless, They are ontologically philosophical. I shall begin with the Moral argument for the existence of God. The argument goes like this: P1. Morality is a rational enterprise P2. Moral Realism is true, Meaning moral facts and duties exist P3. Moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume that moral realism is grounded in a human source of rationality. P4. Premises 1, 2, And 3 confirm that Moral realism is grounded in a source of necessity (necessity meaning it must existence) P5. The source of necessity is what we call God Con. Therefore, God exists. I need to only defend the first third premises to make the argument sound. Is P1 sound? Yes, It is because Morality is deciphered through reason and logic. Just like mathematics and philosophical positions. We know that Morality cannot be based on naturalistic principles because you won't get moral and ethical truths through empirical testings. If someone is about to hurt someone else we cannot know how we ought to act. We can only reason that we do not act in a certain way. Confirming our first Premise. Is the second premise sound? Yes, It is and hears why. Moral realism is true even if no one believes it just like the laws of logic or the laws of physics. Moral realism is independent of Human Cognition but we can tap into moral realism using our cognition. Doing this will help us better operate in reality. I shall give 5 arguments for Moral Realism #1 The Argument from Epistemic Realism Philosophy Professor Dr. Terence Cuneo P1. If Moral facts don't exist, Then epistemic facts don't exist P2. Epistemic facts do exist Con #1: Moral facts exist P3. If moral facts exist, Moral realism is true Con #2: Moral Realism is true. The problem identified is thus how can the skeptic uphold epistemic oughts but deny moral oughts when the two are almost identical. Here an example. Let us say were in a debate. In the debate, One should and will assume that the other will uphold epistemic duties such as not misrepresenting statements, Not make logical fallacies, And being honest. The person prescribes epistemic duties and expects for them to be upheld but that is exactly the problem. Why should I uphold these things if they are all relative? The individual argues for epistemic truths while saying they are subjective yet through their demands reaffirms epistemic truths and thus reaffirms moral truths. For example, Affirming intellectual honest affirms moral honesty. The next argument for Moral Realism is Experience. It is almost impossible to find an individual who lives out Moral relativism. If it's all subjective then why does it matter when it comes to how we treat people if it doesn't affect you. Why do some moral relativists claim it is wrong to enslave women in other countries when it does directly or indirectly affect them? Do other cultures not have the right to decide what is moral? Yet no one lives like that. If someone says that something is right or wrong it means that they are affirming Moral realism. This shows that all humans subconsciously have come to realize that there is a moral reality independent of our control. The argument from experience can be summed up in three Premises. P1. If Moral Realism is false people would not live like it is true P2. People do live like Moral Realism is true C. Moral Realism is true Okay so onto the argument from the Problem of Moral Disagreement. We do not only act as if moral realism is true, But we also converse as if certain moral principles are true. If non-realism is true then we have to accept genital mutilation or the values of the KKK as equal to that of those who oppose such things. In other words, These are non-debatable moral principles. Common sense shows that both cannot be right and wrong but must be one or the other and therefore logical deduction confirms this argument. On to the argument from Moral progress and Convergence. This argument can only work with Moral realism. Moral Progress can only happen if there is an objective moral code to follow. Supposed Cultural morality which states that morality is subjective because of the difference in cultural practices on ethical issues (African Tribes killing deformed infants while that would be heavily condemned in the western world. ) but the thing to remember is that supposed difference in cultural practices are nothing more than factual differences and you can consider the example above for an idea. So the premises for the argument is P1. If Moral Realism is false, Moral progress and convergence would not be possible P2. Moral progress and convergence is possible C. Moral Realism true. The final argument I will present is the argument for Intuition. Moral facts are self-evident. How do we know? If a child is tortured no sensible person will look at that and say that is just how others see the world and we should move on. No, We would demand that such must be stopped and justice must be done. Why because Morality is objective and real as well as self-evident and intuitive and is our starting point. The burden lies on the skeptic to show our intuitions are wrong, Not the moral realist. So what about P3. Is it sound? Yes, It is we cannot be the source of moral knowledge because we are not perfect beings and Hitler is a great example. We also do not know fully about moral facts. We fail to perform moral duties. We are also contingent beings. For example, We discovered the laws of logic and mathematics but we did not make them. 2+2=4 even if no human exists. P3 follows logically from P1 and 2. Because we are contingent and fail to follow moral laws. Logical deduction shows us that P1 and 2 confirm that morality must be grounded in a necessary and rational source. The source must also be sentient. P4 is therefore confirmed. So the basis for morality must be A conscious rational necessary entity who would serve as the foundation for morality and whom we would like to for moral guidance. Logical deduction leads us to P5. If Moral Realism is true then the source for Morality is God simply using logical deduction we can confirm this. So what about the Conclusion is it sound? Yes, The Ontology of Moral Realism (Ontology being the metaphysical study of the nature of being) grounds morality in a conscious rational necessary entity to whom the title of God is given. My next argument is Alvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument. Alvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument: P1. It is possible that God exists. P2. If it is possible that God exists, Then God exists in some possible worlds. P3. If God exists in some possible worlds, Then God exists in all possible worlds. P4. If God exists in all possible worlds, Then God exists in the actual world. P5. If God exists in the actual world, Then God exists. So first some definitions. A "possible world" means any hypothetical situation within reality. God is defined as a "necessary being" a being that must exist in all possible worlds and if you need an example here are some: Numbers, Shapes and Definitions and Facts of Reality. For example, The number 2 must exist in all possible worlds and a square must have 4 sides in all possible words. A square can't have three sides because that would be a triangle, Not a square. God might also be referred to as a Maximally Great Being (MGB) as God in the definition of this argument would have the maximal "dosage of "greater making properties" such as Omniscience and Omnipotence and no lesser-making properties such as corruption. Does the feel convincing? No, At least not to me but when you boil it down to the facts it is a logically coherent argument. The only way to debunk this argument is to debunk P1. I will address the most common objection to P1 pf this argument. It is called the Omnipotence Paradox you may have heard of it. It is usually presented like this. Can God create a stone he can't lift? If he can't he is not all-powerful if he can then he is still not all-powerful because he wouldn't be able to move the stone. Therefore the idea of God as defined in the argument is impossible. Impossible in this argument is defined as a being that cannot exist in any possible world. The problem with the paradox is that it presents a definition of omnipotence that is logically absurd. The people who propagate this argument define omnipotence as being able to do the logically impossible which is not consistent with the definition of omnipotence. This question is based on gibberish such as asking whether an omnipotent being can create a square circle or tell you the shape of purple. The questions and the arguments derived from them are all logically incoherent. Now you might ask why can't God do everything is he not ALL-POWERFUL? Well, You must understand that logic derives from order without order nothing makes sense including existence. In other words, You cannot use logical absurdities to disprove God because if logically absurdities were in a world with God then essentially nothing can exist. Inclusion the paradox is not a valid argument. There are of course other objections to this argument (Logical Problem of suffering and evil, Reverse ontological argument etc) but I won't address them right know as I have other arguments to present. To my disappointment because of the lack of space I was not able to present other arguments such as any cosmological arguments. I do however believe that I have satisfied the burden of proof and look forward to a response from my opponents. Thank you and God bless.