God exists

The Kalam Cosmological Argument P1: Everything that begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: The universe had a cause [1] **Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause** If anything begins to exist without a sufficient cause, there still exists what is called a necessary cause. A necessary cause is that which must exist in order for the existence in question to, well, exist also. For example, there seems to be somewhat of a general consensus in modern physics that quantum fluctuations occur without any sufficient cause at all [2]. However many physicists fail to recognize that the quantum vacuum itself is a necessary cause because without the vacuum existing, there would be no quantum fluctuations (when physicists say "uncaused", what they are really saying is, "without a sufficient cause"). Thus, it is impossible for "something"(2) to come from "something"(1) and be completely uncaused even if it appears that way, because even if there is a lack of a sufficient cause, "something" (1) would be a necessary cause because without it, "something" (2) wouldn't exist. Therefore, the only way for the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be false, is if something can begin to exist from absolute nothingness, because obviously if there is absolute nothingness, there would be no necessary or sufficient causes. Now, can something begin to exist out of absolute nothingness? Well, lets assume that this is possible. If this ever happened, then this absolute nothingness must have at least contained within it, the potential for something. However, even "potential" is "something" in its own right in this particular context, and it definitely does not fall is line with absolute nothingness (absolute nothingness would lack literally everything, including qualities like "the potential for something to exist"). Thus, it is impossible for something to come from absolute nothingness. Since the only way it would be possible for something to begin to exist completely uncaused would be if it begins to exist from absolute nothingness (if it begins to exist from anything at all besides absolute nothingness, then that would be the necessary cause), and it it impossible for something to begin to exist from absolute nothingness (even the potential for something, is still something in its own right in this context), then there is no way the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument could possibly be false. **The Universe Began To Exist** The Big Bang theory seems to provide compelling support to some people with regards to the universe having a beginning. However, we do not know exactly what was going on before Plank time (10-43 seconds) [3], so there were very plausible scenarios in which the universe could have not have had a beginning at one point. These theories are not plausible anymore however, this is because a paper by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin demonstrated a definite finite past of the universe independently of any questions hanging regarding Plank time [4]. "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" - Alexander Vilenkin [5] Also, there couldn't have been an infinite amount of past events anyway. A complete infinite number of things is impossible because you could always add one more, and we never would have reached this point in time if there was a finite past. Thus, the universe began to exist scientifically and philosophically. **The Universe Has A Cause** This conclusion follows logically from the first two premises. KCA Extended: Argument From Mental Causation We have established that the universe must have had a cause, but why must that cause be God? Well, that which created the material world, couldn't be material itself. There are only two things that that fit this description, abstract objects and minds. Since abstract objects have no causal powers, a mind must of caused the universe's existence. KCA Extended: Argument From Personal Causation If the cause of the universe was just a mechanically operating set of mindless and timeless necessary conditions existing from eternity, then the temporal effect would also exist from eternity as well (the problem is, the universe has not existed for a temporal eternity). The only way to have a timeless cause of some sorts and a temporal effect would be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create the effect in time. This is analogous to a man sitting in a chair for eternity, and deciding to get up at a random time. It seems, only a personal cause is sufficient to explain the universe. I have demonstrated that a personal mind caused the universe to begin to exist. This is what the world means, when we speak of God. Thus, I have successfully demonstrated God's existence with this argument. The Modal Ontological ArgumentP1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists. P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. P6: Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [6] **Defense Of The Modal Ontological Argument**A possible world is a state of affairs that can be imagined with no logical incoherence. For example, I own a mansion in some possible world, but a spherical rectangle exists in no possible world because it is incoherent [7]. Since there is no incoherence in the idea of a maximally great being like there is with the idea of a spherical rectangle, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. Also, it is greater to exist in all possible worlds rather than just one. One may say greatness is subjective, but not when dealing with quantities. 6 > 5 objectively, so ontologically in this context, a being who exists in all possible worlds is greater than a being who exists in less. Thus, if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, this being exists in all possible worlds or else this being would not be maximally great. Now, our state of affairs is the actual world. It is obviously possible, or else there would be no way for it to actualize. However, if a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, then this would include the actual world. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. I have shown that a maximally great being exists, this what God is conceived as. So it seems that I have demonstrated God's existence not only with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but with the Modal Ontological Argument as well. Conclusion The universe had a cause of its existence, since only a personal mind could account for the existence of the universe and this is what the world means when we speak of God, then I have shown that God exists. I also demonstrated the existence of a maximally great being, and a maximally great being equating to God is self-evident. Therefore, the resolution has been affirmed unless my opponent adequately tears all my arguments down. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://atheism.about.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [5] Alexander Vilenkin: Many Worlds in One (P. 176)[6] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...