The Statement 'God Exists' is Rationally Justifiable.

Although it’s probable that I may not have used some terms properly, which is justifiable by the fact that I haven’t learned them in English, semantics should matter less than the meaning behind them, & throughout my arguments I did define these terms accordingly to my use of them, & so regardless if these terms bear technical meanings elsewhere, in the context of my arguments they bear the definition that which I provided. Rebuttals: Reducio Ad Absurdum - This is how I defined causality in R1: ‘For every event A there is a - inductively - necessary event B, such that, if B then A.’ > The key word here being ‘inductively’. - Following R2 - Argument4: ‘Explaining inductively Existence is impossible, since the Law of Causality is invalidated: for every event A there is NO event B, such that, if B then A.’ => Existence based ‘causality’ (Efficient Cause of an existent entity) is inductively unfalsifiable, & thus does not obey the Law of Causality, in which case the definition of Cause & Event follows the one I gave in R3: R3: Cause: a cause of an entity B is a necessary event A which which B isn’t an Event (as in caused entity). => & does not follow the definition of Efficient Cause which deals with Event as in existent entity: R3: Efficient Cause: an efficient cause of an entity A is a necessary entity without which A isn’t an Event (as in existent entity). => Thus, Con’s reducio ad absurdum isn’t valid because it’s taken outside of its context, that is from being inductively falsifiable (caused entities) to what is inductively unfalsifiable. Essential Existence - Con gives no arguments to doubt essentialism, he simply questions it! & the only problem Con raises is how to define existence, & not Existence itself. His argument is based on descriptivism which is supported by very few philosophers, & runs against serious problems when examined. [1] - Also, in my line of reasoning, Existence is a coherent notion, for it’s attributed existent entities & not to inexistent entities, the paradigm with which descriptivism is not compatible. - It’s also good to note that unless Con successfully falsifies my argument, it should stand. & arguing for alternate philosophical views without disproving my own should not stand, for my resolution is intended to prove what is Rationally Justifiable, & so as long as my view is rationally justifiable, regardless of the rationality of other alternate views, it will still be valid. "Pro makes no argument that this essential existence has any causal power" - That’s a false claim. I defined that which is caused to exist as caused, & which causes all entities to exist as Essential Existence. & that’s at the core of my Argument-0. if we assume Platonic realism, then abstract objects such as numbers etc. also exist necessarily, yet they lack any causal agency. - Too many assumptions with no arguments. Con is beating around the bush & not attacking my argument directly. - Plus, numbers as abstracts exist only in the case where counting is possible, & thus in the case of the singular Essential Existence, numbers would not even exist as there is no count. & so, they are not necessary existent! Thus Con’s example is self-defeating. Necessary vs. Contingent Existance "if the universe was uncaused it doesn’t follow the universe is the first-cause All the components within the universe would be caused, but none of them would be caused by the universe itself." - Con uses an Ad Hoc argument (& I suspect unknowingly): > First, he uses AGAIN, inductive causality, & not efficient causality (non-existence to existence). There are two definition, my ‘deductive argument’ uses efficient causality, my inductive argument uses inductive causality, it’s not that hard to keep track! > Second, the Universe as the sum of existent entities is an entity itself, & thus, if Con wishes to use it, he has to define exactly the nature of the Universe, is it a simple sum of existent entities? or is it a set that is different from its components? Either way, my Argument-0 would not change, for I have argued for both cases whether the Universe is the Essential Existence, or not. > Third, arriving at an absurd conclusion by supposing the Universe is the Essential Existence only leads to rejecting the supposition & NOT the Argument itself. "I have no idea how Pro can make such a assumption that the law of causality holds outside of any physical construct." - Con must have been imagining arguments I did not advance at all! I did not contest that Causality presupposes the uniformity of nature, which is EXACTLY like saying Causality is inductively true, I would contradict myself if I did such a thing. - It’s up to Con to disprove of the Uniformity of Nature in order to disprove my inductive claim. "Thus how can Pro possible make the sound be that the case that the inductive principles we use within our universe, where A causes B, actually holds when time is removed from the equation" - Con is here again beating around the bush. I mentioned in R3 that there are atemporal quantum causal events which suggest that Causality may precede Time, & as I commented (in R3) right after: ‘Either way I don't see the point!’- Plus, in R2 A4, I demonstrated that -inductive- Causality does NOT hold in the case of Efficient Causality (the process of Existence). - Con is trying to attack randomly anything I am saying without clear line of reasoning! - Also, unless I am wrong, Con undeniably concedes to the -inductive- truth of Causality in this paragraph. "Pro’s monumental claims of causality holding are patently absurd." - That’s another Strawman Fallacy! Inductive Causality holds within the Universe, who said anything about it being true beyond the Universe! "Pro’s case posits at least one thing that is uncaused." - This is the xazillion time Con uses Causality (inductive) & extrapolate it to the other definition of Causality (efficient = made to exist), which make me suspicious of ulterior motives! - Uncaused: (as defined) is NECESSARY EXISTENT. It’s a simple definition, Con is trying to use definitions other than my own to falsify mine! That’s absurd! Causality "no reason for us to accept the law of causality as something that holds at a fundamental level, one reason often posited is the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), in indeterminism the PSR doesn’t hold." - Con makes an incoherent big claim without supporting it by correlating the validity of Causality with PSR. - One notion that falsifies Con’s argument is the CPT symmetry, which is the most recent convention of Causality according to Quantum Physics. [2] "Thus, we know that not all phenomena necessarily need a causal explanation." - Con is probably using some particular definition of Causality & forcing it on Quantum Phenomenons & then concluding on Causality in general. We’ll never know, because he hasn’t provided any explanation for his position. "we have no reason to believe it would hold outside of the universe’s existence." - Yes, so what?! Con probably run out of arguments & resorted to some weird pointless manoeuvres to argue against something completely irrelevant to our subject. Don’t tell me you’re still hang between efficient & inductive causality, maybe somewhere else there is some correlation between them, but in this debate they are not the same thing. "I ask, why do two essential existences need a cause if it’s coherent for them to have one without one, He is demanding an explanation where he has no right to demand one." - No such thing. Apparently Con forgot about argument, I demanded the explanation of the non-equality between these two essential existences, & not the essential existences themselves, which through proof by cases leads to absurd conclusions, because of the fact that these essential existences don't need a cause. Eternalism: "Pro has given no reason to think eternalism is false, and it necessarily must be false otherwise Pro’s arguments are invalid because there is no genuine ‘change’ of the universe in eternalism (e.g. from non-being to being) which renders half of Pro’s arguments invalid" - It’s up to Con to prove that Causality is false. I don’t particularly object to Eternalism, I object to Eternalism being the only truth, if indeed it was true, & Con provided no proof for such claim. Either way, my Argument will still be valid. "Eternalism is completely compatible with a finite (in time) universe, the universe’s beginning would be no more impressive than a ruler has an edge." - My argument was not about the fact of finite events in Time, it’s about finite successive events in Time contained by Causality. - & true Externalism may be compatible with a finite Universe, & that doesn’t say anything at all about it’s factual eternity, for outside Time, the Universe is inexistent. & even inside Time (not the flow of time, there is a big difference), the Universe could have lasted 1 plank time & no physicist would’ve noticed. "Further, I gave reasons to believe eternalism is likely true from special relativity, however I do not need to prove this to show Pro’s arguments are unsound." - I did my part of the BOP, it’s up to Con to contest my arguments. Just providing alternate likely explanations doesn’t affect my argument at all, for his explanation may be rationally justifiable as is mine, & thus my resolution stands. Conclusion - Con failed in every instance to falsify my arguments, & he either redefines my own definitions & attack them thereafter which is irrelevant, or proposes alternate explanations without disproving mine which does not affect my resolution ; or contradict himself by asserting at one point inductive Causality & denying it the next paragraph! Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...;