God Exists

Thank you Con for your responses and comments.God Learning True Tensed PropositionsTo make clear I was not trying to give a source and run when it came to the arguments themselves. I wanted to show that there are many out there and to say there is no evidence is wrong. I didn’t expand on them, as I made clear in round 2, because I wanted to focus first on refuting your evidence. In fact I will finish refuting your evidence first in this round as I can see you did not understand what I meant when I said God learns new truths and acquires new beliefs.First off I apologize at my source quoted from Dr. Craig. Those were not his words, but I did reference his article for information. I used my own analogy of myself being a Paramedic. He used the analogy of Christopher Columbus.1. God knows all true propositions (definition of omniscient).2. God learns new propositions and acquires new beliefs constantly.How does # 2 here follow without contradicting # 1? As I said last round God learns new tensed truths all the time. Let me use Christopher Columbus now as an example to drive home this point.Before 1492 God knew:(1) the true proposition that Christopher Columbus (C.C) had not found America.He also knew:(2) the true proposition that C.C. will find America in 1492.After 1492 (1) becomes false in that C.C. had now discovered America and no longer will discover America. So God acquires a new true proposition that C.C. had discovered America in 1492. Proposition (2) becomes false because of the same reason. So God learns new tensed true propositions, even though he knows all tenseless propositions (C.C. discovers America in 1492). God knew when, where, and how C. C. would discover America before, during, and after he did it. But the true tensed propositions regarding these events changed as they unfolded. So # 1 can follow from #2 without contradicting because God learns new tensed truths while maintaining knowledge of all tenseless truths!!Definition of OmniscienceYou tell us this is the real meaning of omniscient by this quote: "Omniscience is an attribute of God alone. It is the quality of having all knowledge (Isaiah 40:14). God knows all things possible as well as actual..."Problem 1: I’m not sure if you thought I wouldn’t check out your source but let me go ahead and finish the quote for you using the source you provided:“ An attribute of God alone. It is the quality of having all knowledge (Isaiah 40:14). God knows all things possible as well as actual. He does not need to experience something to know about it completely. Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience represent the nature of God concerning His relation to the creation.” [1]With your definition, in full, completely destroys your arguments utilizing omniscience. Your quoted definition also says experiential knowledge is not needed for God to have complete understanding.Problem 2: Using Isaiah 40:14 doesn't help your case for a definition.Isaiah 40:1414Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding? [2]Here we see that God does not obtain knowledge from man, and it has nothing to do with gaining knowledge, or God having knowledge of experience. Evidence for God I did not mean for you to argue the sources, but was just showing you that there is evidence out there in support of God’s existence. Also due to character limits I couldn’t get to it last round. I will present only 1 argument so I can go into detail. The Kalam Cosmological Argument [3] Premise 1 (P1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2 (P2): The universe began to exist. Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause. P1: This is evident all around us. Everything in the physical universe can be traced back to a beginning, and attributed to a cause. My parents were my cause, and their parents theirs. This computer I’m typing on was caused by a computer company manufacturer and so on. Objection to premise 1: A common objection is if everything had a cause then what was Gods cause? But this is just a misunderstanding of the first premise. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. God being eternal wouldn’t need a cause since He never had a beginning. He is an uncaused causer of the universe. Premise 1 still holds. P2: Scientific evidence: The expansion of the universe aka The Big Bang! Expansion: We have been able to observe galaxies growing farther in distance from one another. Also to reverse time we can see that all galaxies grow closer together into a singularity. How could this singularity come into existence from nothing? The answer here is that it couldn’t…it was caused as evidenced by everything else that has come into being. Cosmic Radiation: Cosmic radiation was predicted in 1948 by Cosmologist George Gamov. He theorized that there must be left over radiation from the initial rapid expansion of the initial heated universe. Then a Nobel Prize worthy discovery of the radiation was found in 1965 by Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson. [4] Second Law of Thermodynamics Here is a definition referenced from allaboutscience.org [5]: “The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy. "Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase…” “…The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state).” Philosophical evidence: An infinite number of things cannot exist in reality! No infinite number of things can exist. Absurdities would arise making the reality of an infinite number of things to exist impossible. Infinity only exists in mathematics, but has no place in the physical reality we live in. We could not exist in a single moment if we had an infinite past! If there were an infinite past, we could have never reached this moment in time, yet at the same time would have reached this moment in time an infinite amount of time ago. These absurdities start to become apparent when considering the infinite existing in reality. The universe simply had an absolute beginning. In showing how P1 and P2 are scientifically and philosophically sound, the conclusion logically follows. Now the question is do these premises give us any light on the cause of the universe? In fact they do. 1.The cause must be able to exist outside of time and matter since it caused into existence time and matter. 2.This cause must be uncaused because an infinite number of causes is impossible. 3.It must be overwhelmingly powerful to have created the universe. 4.It must have been from a personal mind due to the cause being timeless yet creating a temporal system (the universe). This is showing a free-will in that it created something spontaneously making the mind a personal being and not just a transcendent cause. 5.From pt. 1, 2, 3, and 4, we can conclude with a strong sense of probability that the universe was caused by an eternal, non physical, and immaterial personal mind aka God! If need be I will expand on this argument next round, and I hope to include more arguments in the effort to provide evidence for God. Thank you Con and I await your response. References in Comments