God Does Exist

(A) Stating the Resolution in ClarityBefore us today we are faced with the simple and short resolution, 'God does exist'. I, as the affirmative case, take the position that this is a true proposition - particularly, that God (denoted by a captial 'G') does in fact exist; it represents a true fact about the world. While on the other hand, someone who takes the position against the resolution (i.e. the negative) is purporting a view that the proposition "God does exist" is a false proposition.As such, the negative is not contending his case against mine on the basis of mere opinions, but rather is to offer reasons as to why his position is true (i.e. "God does not exist"). We will call these reasons premises, and thus my opponent will move from mere opinion to structured argument - which can be questioned or challenged - to establish a conclusion.(1) Defining TheismTo be clear, I am not advocating a view of pantheism (could also be considered 'naturalistic theism'), or panentheism ('All in God'), but rather theism. I will define theism as the following:Theism believes that one infinite, personal God is the ultimate reality... this God created the universe, disclosed Himself to mankind, and gets involved with this world and us, unprompted by any force outside Himself. He is transcendent over the world and immanent (currently present and active) within it" (R. Cornish, '5 Minute Apologist'; cp. 2005, p. 78)To expound further on Cornish's claim of 'person-hood', Richard Swinburne writes, "By person I mean an individual with basic powers (to act intentionally), purposes, and beliefs" (R. Swinburne, "Is There A God?"; cp. 2010, p. 5). According to this definition, theists mean to say that due to God's faculties of perfect and non-coercive actions, He is able to act 'intentionally' (Ibid. p. 6) with the affairs of the world.By virtue of natural theology I will be establishing the following attributes: (a) Eternality (b) Immaterial (c) Uncaused (i.e. 'Self Existent') (d) The inability to be changedFor clarity's sake of my position:(1.a) Not restricted by time or space; (2.b) Cannot be changed by anything other than itself; (3.c) Did not have a beginning in time; (4.d) Does not need things other than itself to continue its existence; (5.e) Whose attributes are not influenced by other things (which means that it has essential attributes, not accidental ones).(*) List taken from Winfried Corduan's 'Cosmological Argument'; cp. 2007, p. 210. My position will be most exemplified as well as further expounded as my argument develops. As such, let us define properly how I will take to mean atheism.(2) Defining Atheism I will be defining atheism as, "'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2004). According to the Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology (The Origins of American English Words) on the origins of the word 'atheism', it writes: "(n.) 1587, borrowed from Middle French atheisme, from Greek atheos denying the gods (a- without + theos a god + Middle French -isme -ism) - atheist n. 1571, borrowed from Middle French atheiste, from Greek atheos + Middle French -iste -ist. (cp. 1995, p. 44)(2.1) The Problem with Defining Atheism as the 'Absence of Belief' George Smith in his atheological volume "Atheism: The Case Against God" (1979) gives a discussion on a rather wrong definition of atheism that I hope to clarify before my audience. He writes:The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism", or without belief in god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist" Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief (p. 7, cp. 1979; Promotheus Books).The problem with this definition (see his chapter on Atheism) is that Atheism presupposes Theism. In other words, atheism is the default position while theism attempts to challenge the status quo. However, this is most notably not the case. The status quo does not presume "an absence of belief in god(s)" while theism challenges that quo.Therefore, I hope my opponent does not take this position (as I have shown it to be false) and wrongly assume that there is no burden of proof on his shoulders. Let us now examine my case for theism.(3) The Cosmological ArgumentAccording to the kalam Cosmological Argument ("kalam" is the Arabic word for "speech"), the premises function as rather mathematical in scope, and also appeal to certain contemporary evidences from Big Bang Cosmology to support the conclusion of a First Cause bringing the universe into being. For the rest of my argument, I will be referring to the following argument:(1.0) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.(2.0) The Universe began to exist.(3.0) Therefore, the Universe has a cause.This syllogism follows the basic criteria of valid deductive logic (i.e., the terms distribute, the conclusion follows, etc.), but our question before us is whether or not the argument is sound (true). The argument establishes a few things: (i) the impossibility of an infinite regress, (ii) the beginning of the universe a finite time ago, and (iii) personal agency bringing the universe into being.I will now establish premises (i)-(iii) in support of the given syllogism. (3.1) The Impossibility of an Infinite Regress of Causes I will be using the following argument for this matter:(1.1) An actual infinite cannot exist.(2.1) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.(3.1) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. The nature of this argument can be most notably at length seen in Aristotle's Physics (see 3.5.204-263^b3). To expound with William Lane Craig when he writes:"The only legitimate sense in which one can speak of the infinite is in terms of potentiality: something may be infinitely divisible or susceptible to infinite addition, but this type of infinity is potential only and can never be fully actualized" (W. L. Craig and J. Sinclair, 'The Kalam Cosmological Argument'; cp. 2009, p. 103) The key difference between an infinite set and an indefinite collection (as Craig notes on p. 105) is that the former has an infinite number of members conceived as a determinate actual whole, while the latter only increases perpetually. As such, I am purporting the following: Unless there were an infinite being, there could be no finite beings. Consider Winfried Corduan when he writes, "In the chain of contingent beings that are mutually dependent on each other, there are only two options. Either there is a cause outside of the chain that actualizes the potential without being actualized by it, or there simply are no contingent beings" (see W. Corduan, Ibid. p. 214). He later then writes, "If an entity is dependent for its being on another entity, which itself is dependent on another entity, it does not matter how long a chain of mutually dependent entities you create or whether you link all of these things in a circle; unless there is an entity outside the chain, you will never get an actual being. And since we know that contingent beings exist, there must be such a being." (Ibid. p. 214). For this to be possible (i.e. contingent beings), a being like the one listed in (1.a-5.e) must exist. Therefore, I take the possibility of infinite regress to be impossible, and the finite nature of the universe to be established. (3.2) Personal Agency If this Cause is a First Cause, and brought the universe into being a finite time ago, then it follows that this Cause has personal agency to his willing of the universe to come into being. I will expound on this issue more abroad to my opponents attack of this Cause being personal (since I take Impersonal or Material Causes to not have the power of will, or intentionality). I now leave the floor for the negation open to a rebuttal.