God Exists

Observations Ob1: The definitions are non-specific enough for me to defend a God of deism rather than one of theism, i.e. a God who does not play an active part in the “ruling” of the universe. Ob2: The God I shall be defending ascribes to no particular religion and is, rather, a generalistic deistic God, as the definitions and rules allow me to do so. C1) Cosmological Argument My first contention for the existence of God is a re-formulation of the cosmological argument by W.L. Craig, rooted in the Islamic Kalām heritage, and hence called the Kalām Cosmological Argument. [1] Craig structures the KCA in the following manner. P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe begins to exist. C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause. P3: There was no time, space, change, materiality or anything abstract prior to the universe. P4: Hence, this cause must be personal, without time, space, change, and materiality; it must also be extremely powerful. C2: Such a cause is God, who exists. CIA. Defense of P1 P1 is rationally intuitive knowledge, that derives from Parmenidean ontology, stating “Ex nihilo nihil fit”, i.e. “something cannot come from nothing”. [2] While one may subject P1 to criticism using Lawrence Krauss’ cited example of virtual particles, I would like to note that virtual particles *do not* come from nothing, but rather from the limited energy of the quantum vacuum. [3] CIB. Defense of P2 If the universe did not begin to exist, then it would mean the universe has existed eternally. This implies the existence of actual infinities. According to the Hilbert Hotel paradox, and others, actual infinities *cannot* exist, and they are metaphysically impossible. As actual infinities cannot exist, the universe would have had to begin to exist. [4] From a scientific perspective, the eternal existence of the universe is impossible. For this, I apply the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, a cosmological theorem which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. [5] “What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. ... But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called ‘multiverse’ composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.” [6] CIC. Defense of P3 The universe, by definition, refers to all of space, time, matter, antimatter and energy. Therefore, there cannot be any space, time or anything material prior to the universe. CID. Defense of P4 Without abstract concepts envisioned, the cause *must* be personal and sentient. The cause must also be devoid of the properties of the universe, from P3. It must also be extremely powerful to create the universe. This fits with the debate’s definition of God. Therefore, God’s existence is a necessity. C2) Teleological Argument The teleological argument or physico-theological argument presented by me shall take a structure similar to that of Thomas Aquinas, as presented by W.L. Craig. The structure is as follows. P1: If the universe is finely tuned, then an ordering intellect exists. P2: The universe is finely tuned. C: An ordering intellect exists. CIIA. Defense of P1 “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.” [7] If the universe is so finely tuned with natural order, there is no explanation except intelligent design intuitively speaking. For example, when archaeologists look at an ornate carving from 6,000 BCE, they know that it is human-made, and theorize about humans living in the area 8,000 years ago. Similarly, if something is finely tuned, then obvious intuition suggests an ordering intellect caused it. CIIB. Defense of P2 Fred Hoyle argues for a fine-tuned universe in his book Intelligent Universe (1984). He compares “the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a star system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.” [8] According to the widely supported fine-tuned universe theory, the universe is *precisely tuned* for life to exist on one planet. The theory is supported by many philosophers and physicists. [9] CIIC. Further Defense of Teleology As the universe had a beginning, there are only three possible explanations for its origins. (1) Physical necessity (2) Chance (3) Intelligent Design I will be supporting the latter. Let me compare these explanations: Physical necessity - there is no logical or scientific evidence to support that the universe exists out of pure physical necessity. Therefore, it is best to directly dismiss the hypothesis that the universe exists out of physical necessity. Chance - the obvious atheistic standpoint for the universe being created is out of pure chance. This is a viable option, but it is *astoundingly* improbable. Physicist and mathematician Professor Roger Penrose of the Oxford University has calculated that the mathematical likelihood of a universe being created in a zero-entropy condition out of pure chance is 1:10^10(123). [10] The sheer improbability of this leads us to almost dismiss it completely. Intelligent Design - as physical necessity is *absolutely* unsupported, we have dismissed it completely. Therefore, it is a comparison between chance and design, for which we have to flip the ratio of the probability of chance around. Thus, the mathematical likelihood of intelligent design is 10^10(123):1, which is extremely probable and the most likely explanation. C3) Contingency I shall now present the Modal Cosmological Argument, also known as the Argument from Contingency, that takes the following structure. P1: Everything in the universe exists contingently P2: Contingent existence is a property that is transferable from part to whole C1: The universe is contingent. P3: To prevent reductio ad infinitum, there must be a necessary entity on which all other things are contingent. P4: A necessary entity would be the creator of all contingent entities C2: The universe was created C3: God by definition is a non-contingent origin of the universe, and, thus, exists. CIIIA. Defense of P1 It is an already physically established fact that all existence is contingent and variable. It is impossible for anything to be definite. [11] Therefore, everything in the universe exists contingently. CIIIB. Defense of P2 Contingency of the existence of particles *is* transferable by simple logic to make up the whole without necessarily committing the fallacy of composition, viz. as *existence* itself is seen as being contingent, we can thus transfer it. CIIIC. Defense of P3 If there is no non-contingent being, then there would be an infinite regression of contingency. As actual infinities cannot exist, such a regression is impossible. P4, C2 and C3 are self-explanatory. Therefore, God exists. ==Summary== (1) God exists as he is the only means of causality. (2) Such a fine-tuned universe requires an intelligent creator, and the probability of intelligent design is exponentially high. (3) There must be a fixed non-contingent entity who is the originator of all contingent entities; this entity is God, and, therefore, God exists. Conclusion I have presented 3 reasons to think deism is true. In the next round, Con must not present rebuttals but present his *own* case. We can move on to refutation and defense in the next rounds. I expect Con to give good reasons to think atheism is true under a shared BoP. I have shown how God likely exists. I look forward to an interesting debate. References 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. Craig, W.L. and Moreland, J.P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. pp. 182-190. 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. Hawking, S.W. (1988). A Brief History of Time. p. 59.