Resolved: God is more likely than not to exist.

Contention 1: The Modal Ontological Argument Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow. 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1] Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument. S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2] This would mean if a MGB is possible then it exists in at least one possible world. Under this model it would have to exist in all possible worlds qua maximally great especially since MG entails absolute exsistance. Since this world is part of a string of possible worlds then God has no choice, but to exist in this world. Anslem's OAA 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. [3]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. Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological ArgumentThe Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start refurring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple theory that I have bellow.(1) Everything that began to exist had a cause(2) The universe began to exist(3) The universe had a cause(4) If the universe had a cause, that cause is God(5) Therefore, God exists [4]The first premise is true by the very laws a physics as it is a law of Conservation of Mass as it shows that Matter cannot be neither created nor destroyed. Meaning that the Universe cannot have been spontanously created as Big Bang opponent Flyod has stated. We can also see that things are not spontanous here. Like why doesn't the Earth suddenly expload? This is because the very laws of Physics binds and restrics nothingness so we can see that for one to question the first premise would be to question regualrity.Now let us move on to the second premise here which is backed both by scientce and philosophy. Craig agrues using the Brode-Gruth-Velikum Theory that through the use of Red shift which shows that the universe is exspanding we can actually see that the universe, even if it is part of some multi-verse, still had to be created. [5] The philosophical side of this argument is that though many argue that the universe may be infinate the thing is that it is highly unlikely for things to exsist in an infinate chain and are thus had to have a starting finite point somwhere. Even if we look at Tyson's theory on how this universe started and that it is a multiverse we can still see that the universe, this one, had a beginning.For the 4th Premise I will be arguing Monistic Idealism which is bellow. We can see that since it had a cause the cause was transcendent meaning that it was timeless and spaceless. Only minds are from this sphere and if I can prove that God is a Mind/sphere then I win the debate.Monistic idealism.P1 Mind is mentalP2 Nothing mental can interact with what is non-mentalC1 Nothing mind interacts with is non-mentalP3 Mind interacts with realityC2 Reality is mental P1: Mind is mental.SolipsismP1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).C: Mind is not matter.Metaphysical Solipsism shows that all exists within our own minds. Though we may think there is a world out there it is all actually in our minds. [6] Thus a world has to exist within our own minds and there are several reasons why this is completely true. It makes perfect sense since it isn't prima facie impossible and thus must be accepted as a solid fact, not to mention that it is perfectably reasonable and a sound argement. If we can see that the mind was matter, then it would be impossible to exist appart from matter itself. Things that are Metaphysically impossible are not even imaginable. Can you imagine a Square Hexigon? No, such a thing is perposterous. We can thus see that Metaphysical solipsism is consitstant with Metaphysically possible. Here we have to apply the Indentity of Indiscernibles. ∀F(Fx ↔ Fy) → x=y.This is reflected by showing that these things are distinguished by some differential, but in the case of, let's say clones for the sake of arguing, is just a replication of it's own molecules. This is centered on the basis that all things have an individualistic characteristic and in the case of God it is the existance of it's own mind and it's consciencousness that shows this. I shall give an example bellow.There are 3 Sphere, Sphere A, B, and CEach have the same qualities.Each of these Spheres exist in world 1.Sphere A exists in World 2, but Sphere B and C cannot due to their likeness characteristics. [7]We can see that this is a logically coherrant case and thus is sound. We can also see that due to the theory of Truely Large Numbers that there is a great chance that this world is that of a Solipsism one as many studies have shown. (but that's for another debate)P2: Seperate Substances cannot interactI will now debunk substance and property dualism for this to be true. Substance DualismThis is best cleverly sumed up by the phrase "Mind over Matter" where they argue that there's escentially two distinct things: Mind and Matter. [8] Though the key question here is if the mind is seperate from matter than how does the mind and the brain interact? We would have to see in order for the consciousness and matter to interact there would have to be some sort of interaction. (See image bellow) The trap here is that since there is a linkage here we can see that there cannot be two seperate things since they would have to be interlinked. Thus the theory here is false. Property DualismSo you may concede to the above dualism, but then you might say, alrighty, if that is true then the mind must be a property of the brain. Though if this was true then it would lead to epiphenomenalism and that there would be no free will since everything that we do would have been created by some reaction in the Physical aspect. Though this is completely false as this leads to an interesting contradiction of itself. Say I weigh 180 lbs (not my actual weight, but it's an example), the property of me would be 180 lbs. Now tell me, have you ever gone outside or to the zoo and seen 180lbs? No something that weighs that, but the 180 lbs by itself? Thus we can blatently see that it is an abstract that exists only as a property. It can only exist as a property of something else. If we remember my Solipsism argument from earlier we can see that the mind can exist by itself and thus it cannot be a property like the 180 lbs as the mind isn't a property thus it wouldn't be consevable much like the 180 lbs. P3: Mind interacts with reality. This almost seems like it's the most obvious here, so I'll try to not spend a whole great deal of time here. We can take many examples, but let's take pain for the greatest example here. I get hit in the head with a foul ball at a baseball game. Outside of the fact that I would probably have been KO'd we can see that the mind affects what I feel. I would feel a massive amount of pain and if it was great enough then I would lose consciousness and the mind would go dormant to protect itself and me as a person. Thus the reality is mental and God has no choice but to exist.