The Best Evidence/Argument For God's Existence

AveDefinitionsCause-- an efficient cause. In other words, the efficient cause is the thing that produces the effectAn artist is the efficient cause of the painting.Universe-- connected or contiguous spacetimeBegins to exist--A. X begins to exist at t if and only if x comes into being at t.B. X comes into being at t if and only if (i) X exists at t, and the actual world includes no state of affairs in which x exists timelessly, (ii), t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any t'<t at which x existed by an interval during which x does not exist, and (iii) x's existing at is a tensed fact.God-- the personal cause of the universeIntroduction and ContentionsIn this debate, I will be defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The premises of this argument are quite simply and easy to understand. After outlining the argument, I'll give a defense of each premise. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.4. If the universe has a cause, there exists a personal cause of the universe.5. Therefore, there exists a personal cause of the universe.Premise 1This premise states that everything which begins to exist has a cause. Note that I'm not asserting that everything in the universe which begins to exist has a cause. Rather, I'm stating that everything that begins to exist has a cause.1.1) Our intuitions tell us that everything that comes into being has a cause. Imagine yourself on a game show, and the host knows everything about the universe. The trillion dollar question is: Could the universe have popped into being, from nothing, without a cause? Would anyone honestly answer "yes" to this question? Our intuition therefore gives us prima facie warrant to accept the first premise as true. Note that I'm not making the argument that everything which is counterinuitive is false. Rather, I'm saying that absent of any overriding reason to deny our intuitions about reality, we should affirm them.1.2) We can also formulate what I call a "causal hypothesis". This causal hypothesis states that "there is no thing that comes into being without a cause". A hypothesis is probably true if it's always confirmed and never disproven, and makes bold predictions that can be falsified. [1] It's apparent that the causal hypothesis is always confirmed and never disproven. Everywhere we look, we see causality around us, yet we never see acausality. It's apparent that the causal hypothesis makes bold predictions, because it says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is a bold prediction because you only need one example to prove it's wrong. It's falsifiable because the discovery of an uncaused event would disprove it. Therefore, the causal hypothesis is probably true, and the first premise true as well. Note that this is not an a priori argument for the first premise, but an a posteriori argument that comes from empirical evidence.Premise 22.1) This second premise is experimentally confirmed by Einstein's general theory of relativity. Indeed, denying the second premise is equivalent to denying Big Bang cosmology. Physicists derive equations from Einstein's general theory of relativity called Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metrics [2], which tell us about the universe we live in. These metrics state that our connected space-time is expanding [3]. If space and time are expanding, then we can extrapolate this expansion backwards to the beginning of the universe at T=0, where everything in the universe is contained at a singular point. This demonstrates that the universe did not have an infinite past, but rather, a beginning.2.2)P1) The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.P2) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.C) Therefore the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.The first premise is non-controversial. The series of events grows after every day passes. Today, the series of events is n, but tomorrow, it will be n+1. Therefore, the temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.As for premise two, it's clear that you can never get to infinity. For any number you add to n, the series of events, you can always add one more. N+1, N+2, etc. The number aleph zero in Cantorian mathematics, which represents infinity, has no number that precedes it. If you are able to reach aleph zero by counting, then this would involve passing through a number that precedes it, which is mathematically impossible. Therefore, you can never reach an actual infinite through successive addition. Rather, you only get a potential infinity, which reaches towards infinity but never gets there.Since the temporal series of events is formed by successive addition, and you never reach infinity by successive addition, then the temporal series of events cannot be infinite. [4]Premise 3This follows logically from Premise 1 and Premise 2.Premise 44.1)P1) The cause of the universe is either a conscious being or an abstract object.P2) The cause of the universe is not an abstract object.C) The cause of the universe is a conscious beingHow do we know that the cause is personal (conscious), rather than an abstract object that caused the universe? The answer is that abstract objects, by their very definition, exert no causal influences on the world. Abstract objects, in order to be abstract, must satisfy what is called the "Causal Inefficacy Criterion", which states that "An object is an abstract object if and only if it is causally ineffacious". [5] Causally ineffacious means that they posses no causal powers. Therefore, an abstract object cannot cause the universe because they possess no causal properties.4.2) Some might argue that a non-conscious force caused the universe. This explanation is more implausible than a personal explanation. If a non-conscious force was floating around before the beginning of the universe, then why did the universe come into being? It's not as if the force willed the universe into being, because will requires a conscious mind. Why would a timeless and immaterial realm with an impersonal force suddenly give rise to a physical world? This is completely inexplicable if a non-conscious force caused the universe, but a personal cause has no such issues, because we can say that the personal cause willed the universe into being.A personal explanation is therefore the best explanation of the universe, affirming premise four.Premise FiveThis follows logically from the premises established. Therefore, god exists.A Preliminary Address of Quantum Mechanical ConcernsI have some room, so I'll address the claim that quantum mechanics refutes the first premise. This argument fails to understand that quantum indeterminism is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that there are empirically equivalent interpretations that are deterministic. Bohmian mechanics, for example, is a deterministic interpretation which "has the property that in a world governed by Bohmian mechanics, observers see the same statistics for experimental results as predicted by quantum mechanics." [6] The physicist Brian Greene wrote that "This {Bohm's mechanics} approach agrees fully with the successful predictions of standard quantum mechanics...."[7]. The book Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity also notes that "Bohmian quantum mechanics is mathematically consistent and consonant with all experimental results..". [8]ValeReferences[1] The Logic of Scientific Discovery, pg 6, pg 9, pg 50, pg 51[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] A Universe from Nothing, pg 3[4] Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, pg 32[5] http://plato.stanford.edu...[6] http://arxiv.org...[7] The Fabric of the Cosmos, pg 206[8] Einstein, Relativity, and Asolute Simultaneity, pg 32