God exists

Argument from Fine Tuning: P1) There is incomprehensibly improbably fine tuning of the universe for life (sometimes, even for the universe to exist) P2) The only logical explanations are chance, necessity or design P3) It is not due to necessity or chance Conclusion : The fine tuning of the universe is due to design. P1) One example is If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of 1 part in 10^10^123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind. This is only one constant. Most of the sources and the examples of fine tuning can be found here [1]. P2) True unless my opponent wants to provide any other explanation. P3) Necessity : Some constants do not even have to exist and you would still have a universe (hostile to any form of life, however) [2] therefore they are not necessary constants Chance : The possibility that the universe would have had this perfect match of constants has been estimated by two of the best mathematicians of our time (Penrose and Lennox) to be 1 in 1^10^123 based on only one constant [3] [4] [5] . according to mathematicians, anything with the possibility of 1 in 10^50 is basically impossible [6] [7] It takes less faith for design. "This is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all . . . it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - Paul Davies "WHEREVER PHYSICISTS LOOK, THEY SEE EXAMPLES OF FINE-TUNING." - Sir Martin Rees "THE REMARKABLE FACT IS THAT THE VALUES OF THESE NUMBERS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN VERY FINELY ADJUSTED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE." - Stephen Hawking "IF ANYONE CLAIMS NOT TO BE SURPRISED BY THE SPECIAL FEATURES THE UNIVERSE HAS, HE IS HIDING HIS HEAD IN THE SAND. THESE SPECIAL FEATURES ARE SURPRISING AND UNLIKELY." - David Deutsch Implications : The deliberate designer would have to exist before the universe existed (to design some of the constants required for the universe to even exist) and is therefore independent of nature (supernatural), universe and its dimensions (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc.). The traits of this supernatural designer proves it is most likely God. Modal Ontological Argument: P1) It is possible that a Maximally Great being (MGB) exists P2) If MGB is possible, he exists in some possible world P3) If MGB exists in some possible world, he exists in all possible worlds P4) If MGB exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world Conclusion : MGB or God exists Premise one) It is definitely possible for God or a MGB to exist in some possible world since it is not a logical contradiction. Premise 2) If MGB is possible to exist, it logically follows that he exists in some possible world since existing in some possible world would lend truth to the possibility of his existence. Premise 3) a maximally great being is by definition, one which has all the properties favorable to have than not. His existence would necessitate having all the great properties to the fullest extent. One great property that he would have to the fullest extent would be the property of necessity. a MGB would be categorized as a necessary being rather than a contingent being for it is greater and to a fuller extent to exist in all possible worlds (necessary) rather than to exist in some possible world (contingent). Therefore, a MGB would have to be a necessary entity. a necessary entity by definition is one that exists in all possible worlds including the world that we currently live in i.e. the actual world. Premise 4) If God exists in the set of all possible worlds, it logically entails that he exists in this actual world since this world is possible to exist and does exist. Some might claim that reality and the actual world is an illusion or some computer stimulation, however, this has been disproven by Rene Descartes' "I think therefore I am". Conclusion : If God exists in this world, then God exists in the actual world. Question begging? Some critics and skeptics might say that the argument uses God's definition to prove the existence of God. However. This is maliciously false since the argument uses the philosophy of ontology. [8] Moreover, the skeptics of such argument fail to recognize the difference between "de dre" and "de dicto". [9] Unicorns? Some claim that the argument could be used to argue for the existence of a single horned horse or the unicorn. However, proponents of this objection fail to realize the distinction that unicorns are contingent entities while a MGB entails necessity of his existence. Kalam Argument P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause P2) The universe began to exist Conclusion : Therefore the universe has a cause Premise one : A) Ex nihilo, nihil fit The first premise that whatever begins to exist must have a cause has been substantiated by multiple philosophical principles like ex nihilo, nihil fit. Using a variation of reductio ad absurdum, whoever denies this premise will have to propose that whatever begins to exist does not have a cause and can pop into existence from nothing and by nothing. However according to ex nihilo, nihil fit, out of nothing, nothing comes since nothing is NO THING and NO THING has no causal powers since it has no thing to attribute these causal powers to. B) Reductio Ad Absurdum If the first premise is false and its negation is true then we should expect that whatever begins to exist does not have a cause and can pop into existence from nothing and by nothing. If this is the case, why do not bikes, cars and houses pop into existence from nothing and by nothing? The simple answer would be that it is ridicolous and impossible for something to pop into existence from nothing and by nothing. According to the law of non-contradiction, if the negation of the proposition that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is ridiculous (as evidenced by the impossibility of things like cars, houses and bike to begin to exist from nothing and by nothing and by no cause), then the affirmation of the proposition is undeniable. Virtual particles? Skeptics will propose that the first premise falls under virtual particles that do come into being from nothing. This is simply false. Virtual particles are the result of quantum vacuum energy fluctuations and they do come from something ... quantum vacuum energy. Premise two : The universe began to exist. A) Big bang According to the best data and evidence we have from cosmology, the universe began to exist 14 billion years ago.[10] "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology." [11] - Stephen Hawkings B) Second law of thermodynamics This law states that usable energy turns to heat and atoms become disordered overtime. If the universe is eternal, there would be no usable energy and only heat by now since all of the usable energy would turn to heat. However, there is usable energy therefore the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. This is inductive reasoning and allows judgements about the parts (entropy in closed systems in the universe) and the whole (heat death of the universe itself). [12] C) Reductio ad absurdum Singularity and infinite sequence of events. If the singularity of the big bang or the universe is past-eternal, then it would have to undergo an infinite past sequence of events before getting to the big bang meaning that the singularity would never get to the rapid expansion of the big bang due to being eternally stuck in past infinity before getting to the big bang (infinite regress). Skeptics would like to point out that B theory of time deals with this issue. However, invoking b theory does not resolve anything since now the singularity is travelling through an infinity of equally real time for an eternity and is thus stuck in past-infinity and would never get to the big bang due to being stuck in infinity and due to infinite regress. But the universe did get to the big bang (evidenced by CMBR, redshift of galaxies, etc.). On the nature of the cause: - Nothing : Disproven in the first premise - Natural processes within the universe like quantum mechanics : Catch 22. You need quantum mechanics to create the universe but you need the universe for quantum mechanics to happen. quantum mechanics can only happen in a vacuum or empty space. You would need the space dimension for that. But space can only exist in the universe, by definition. - Natural processes outside the universe: There is nothing natural outside the universe because the universe is by definition everything that exists naturally. Moreover, the universe can not physically expand beyond its horizons because there is no space proving that the space dimension does not exist beyond the universe. [13] The obvious question then arises, if there is no space beyond the universe, WHERE do these natural entities exist? - External cause The external cause would be have to be independent of nature, the universe and its dimensions since it had to exist before the universe in order to create it. Extrapolating from this analysis, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical, etc. (Independence of the universe and dimensions) and the cause must be supernatural (independence from nature). Only two things fit this description : abstract objects and God. But we all know abstract objects like numbers or triangles do not create anything and have no causal powers like creating a car, house, let alone universe. Thus, God is the spaceless, timeless, non-physical, immaterial and supernatural creator of the universe.