There Exists Either Irrefutable or Reasonable Grounds for Believing in the Existence of God

The Modal Ontological Argument In Christian philosophy, God is commonly adhered to as a maximally great being (of the most perfect being possible)."When they speak of God, people have traditional meant a personal being; The most perfect one possible." [1] “Thus, if the idea of God is the idea of the greatest conceivable or maximally perfect being – it must be the idea of something that is absolutely independent and unlimited. If we are not thinking of an absolutely independent and unlimited being, we are not thinking of God at all.” – P. Dawson [2] Modal Logic In modal logic, we infer that if some entity is possible then this entity is exists in some possible world. To exist in some possible world however, there must also contain no type of contradiction involving this entity [3].Maximally Great Being A maximally great being is a being with all of what we would call great making properties (Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Omnipotence ect.). Now, it is self evident that it would be greater to exist in all possible worlds rather than simply just one possible world (3 > 2, 4 > 3 ect.). If another being existed in more worlds than another, then that being would be greater. Thus, if a maximally great being exists in at least one possible world, then necessarily, this being exists in all possible worlds (or else, there would be no way to claim this being was maximally great). [4]The ArgumentLets take a look at the premises of the Ontological Argument to see if they follow logically:P1: "It is possible that a maximally great being exists."There is nothing contradictory in the concept of God. P2: "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world."This follows from Modal Logic, as I already explained previously. P3: "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world."This follows from the very concept of a maximally great being, as I explained previously. P4: "If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world."If there is not a possible world where this being does not exist, then the being must exist in the actual world. This is because our world is possible (if it was impossible, we would not exist). So, since this being exists in every possible world, the being necessarily exists in the actual world. P5: "If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists."This is self-evident.C: "Therefore, a maximally great being exists."This conclusion follows logically from all the preceding premises, showing that this argument is a logical proof for the existence of a maximally great being. Parodies Some people are under the false impression that this argument can prove anything. For an example, some people think this argument can prove the existence of a maximally great cell phone. However, a cell phone is a contingent but to be maximally great is be necessary. Some may think that it can prove the existence of a maximally great alien, but once again; an extraterrestrial is contingent to nature and we are discussing that which is completely necessary. Conclusion Premise 1 of the Modal Ontological Argument is true, thus the argument logically proves the existence of a maximally great being ("God"). The logic is very simple once you understand it, and most objections to the logic seem to be misunderstandings of it. It seems as if we have logical proof of God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument P1: Everything that begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: The universe had a cause [1] Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause If something begins to exist without a cause, this means something begins to exist without a necessary or sufficient cause. This means, that something began to exist out of absolute nothingness. Now, can something begin to exist out of absolute nothingness? Well, lets assume that this is possible. If this ever happened, then this absolute nothingness must have at least contained within it the potential for something. However, even "potential" is "something" in its own right in this particular context, and it definitely does not fall is line with absolute nothingness (absolute nothingness would lack literally everything, including qualities like "the potential for something to exist"). Thus, it is impossible for something to come from absolute nothingness. Since the only way it would be possible for something to begin to exist completely uncaused would be if it begins to exist from absolute nothingness (if it begins to exist from anything at all besides absolute nothingness, then that would be the necessary cause), and it it impossible for something to begin to exist from absolute nothingness (even the potential for something, is still something in its own right in this context), then there is no way the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument could possibly be false. The Universe Began To Exist The Big Bang theory seems to provide compelling support to some people with regards to the universe having a beginning. However, we do not know exactly what was going on before Plank time (10-43 seconds) [5], so there were very plausible scenarios in which the universe could have not have had a beginning at one point. These theories are not plausible anymore however, this is because a paper by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin demonstrated a definite finite past of the universe independently of any questions hanging regarding Plank time [6]. "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" - Alexander Vilenkin [7] Also, there couldn't have been an infinite amount of past events. A complete infinite number of things is impossible because you could always add one more, and we never would have reached this point if there was an infinite past. - We can say the universe began to exist scientifically and philosophically. The Universe Has A Cause This conclusion follows logically from the first two premises. KCA Extended: Argument From Mental Causation We have established that the universe must have had a cause, but why must that cause be God? Well, that which created the material world, could not be material itself. There are only two things that that fit this description; abstract objects and minds. Since abstract objects have no causal powers, a mind must of caused the universe's existence.KCA Extended: Argument From Personal Causation If the cause of the universe was just a mechanically operating set of mindless and timeless necessary conditions existing from eternity, then the temporal effect would also exist from eternity as well (the problem is, the universe has not existed for a temporal eternity). The only way to have a timeless cause of some sorts and a temporal effect would be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create the effect in time. This is analogous to a man sitting in a chair for eternity, and deciding to get up at a random time. It seems, only a personal cause is sufficient to explain the universe. I have demonstrated that a personal mind caused the universe to begin. This is what the world means, when we speak of God. Thus, I have successfully demonstrated God's existence with this argument.Conclusion I have met my burden of proof. Sources[1] http://www.youtube.com... [Video Source][2] https://vle.ucs.org.uk... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.doxa.ws... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [7] Alexander Vilenkin: Many Worlds in One (P. 176)