God Exists

There's clearly a difference between our gradual discovery of such a being, and theactual existence of such a being, if the being exists. But if we can conceiveof such a being, then it seems that at least it's possible for it to exist, butby virtue of maximal excellence, the supreme being must in exist in allpossible worlds (if maximal greatness is incoherent) or every possible world,which includes the actual world (by virtue of being maximally excellent). Thusif you think it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then it followsnecessarily that a maximally great being does in fact exist! We can summarizeour argument thus far as follows, Ontological Argument 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists insome possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world 5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. 6. Therefore a maximally great being exists. Most philosophers agree that if God’s existence is possible, then he must exist. That is, God is a necessary being which grounds all reality if he is merely possible. Think of a very difficult math problem on a chalkboard. If it's beyond our ability to grasp, we may say that it's possible that the equation is true and it's possible that it is false. But we thereby merely confess our epistemic uncertainty concerning the equation's truth value. But the equation itself is either necessarily true or necessarily false. We just don't know which. But if it is true, it's necessarily true, and thereforeit's not possible for it to be false. Warrant For Premise One a priori A maximally great being is intuitively coherent and therefore possibly instantiated. So in orderfor the argument to fail the concept of God must be logically incoherent. But amaximally great being doesn't seem even remotely incoherent, so at leastthere exists a prima facie warrant for premise one. a posteriori If we carefully ponder 1 and objections to it and if weconsider its connections with other propositions we accept or reject and westill find it compelling, then we're within our rational right to accept 1. So even if we cannot come to a priori warrant, we're rational in accepting1 by a posteriori warrant from arguments like the Leibnizian CosmologicalArgument, which demonstrates a metaphysically necessary being who groundscontingent things . The Principal of Sufficient Reason The Principal of Sufficient reasonis the age old argument that nothing is without a ground reason of why it is. For every X entity, if X exists, then there is a sufficient reason for why Xexists. In our case, this X entity is the universe as a whole. Imagine you found a small toy car in the middle of the desert. You may not know why that car is there, but you know that there had to be some force, be it human, the wind, etc. that put that toy where it is. Now imagine that toy car is the size of an actual car, it still needs a reason for why it’s there, right? Nowimagine that car is the size of the universe, it still must have an explanation. So no matter what size an object is, be it the toy car or the universe, there must be an explanation for its existence, or why it is there. Keep in mind, the Principal of Sufficient Reason does not prove there is a God, but it does help to prove why the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is true. The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (PSR) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe exists. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4) Warrant for Premise One The warrant for Premise one is just a simple restatement ofthe Principle of Sufficient Reason. Warrant for Premise Two Two is the logical equivalent to what atheists often affirmthat if atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence. Forthe transcendent cause must be immaterial, and there are two things which fitsuch a description: abstract objects or Minds. But abstract objects don’t standin causal relations, they don't fit our criteria for existence, hence the causeof the universe must be an ultra-mundane mind. The universe clearly exists, sotherefore it follows logically that the universe has an explanation, thatexplanation being God. Argument Based on the Law of Thermodynamics According to the Conservation of Energy Law,under the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be destroyed, orcreated. Since energy cannot be created, theoretically, thereshould be no Universe. If there is a Universe, then there must havebeen an outside force that doesn’t have to follow the laws of thermodynamics. Thatinfluence had to be God. Therefore, God exists. In order to keep the law of Conservation of Energy valid,there is only one other possible explanation and that is that the Universe iseternal. This cannot be the case however, according to the 2nd lawof thermodynamics. According to the 2nd Law ofThermodynamics, the Universe has a limited supply of energy that it can expend. Thus, the Universe is finite. If the Universe is finite, then the energy hasto have come into being without conflicting with the first or second laws ofThermodynamics. That force could have only been God. Therefore, God exists. I will await Con’s rebuttal to see what additional arguments need to be made. . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://bibowen.hubpages.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...