General Theism Contains a True Proposition for God's Existence

(1) Defining Theism I will define traditional (or according to the resolution, 'general') theism as the following: "There exists necessarily a person without a body who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things" (R. Swinburne, 'The Existence of God'; p. 6). Dr. Rick Cornish further expounds, "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 with Swinburne's claim of 'person-hood': "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. To summarize the attributes of God as such by the following definitions: (a) Omnipotent (All-powerful) (b) Omniscient (All-knowing) (c) Perfectly Free (d) Transcendent (e) Immanent (f) Creator (g) Perfectly Good (h) Omnipresent (see Swinburne, 'Is There A God', p. 11 for more on this subject) (2) Defining Atheism I will be defining atheism as the following: "'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2004). George Smith in his atheological volume "Atheism: The Case Against God" (1979) gives a sympathetic discussion to how to properly understand atheism. 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. If we have the proposition "God does exist", we must consider whether or not it is true, and if it is true, it must also be capable of being false (Wittgenstein). Let us then examine my case for Theism. (3) The Cosmological Argument According 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 this post, we 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, or the universe being actualized, (ii) the beginning of the universe a finite time ago, and (iii) personal agency bringing the universe into being. (3.1) Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? The question was first raised by Gottfried Leibniz in his 1697 essay, "On the Ultimate Origins of Things", and as such has been a topic discussed even more prevalently in contemporary philosophical circles. However, what did Leibniz have to say about the matter? (3.2) Leibniz's Recognition of Contingent Facts Leibniz in the beginning of his essay recognizes that there is a "being who rules" beyond the collection of finite things, and thus not only constitutes as merely above the world or outside of it, but rather an ultimate reason for the entire contingent faculty. He states his premise as: * (2.0) [This cause] is the only extramundane thing, i.e. the only thing that exists out of the world; and nothing in the world could be the ultimate reason for things. To expound upon this premise, let us imagine that before us we have set of finite or contingent objects, each of which that do not seem to have the sufficient reason for why they exist in and of themselves. Rather, the sufficient reason for their existence must be outside of them. From this point, we can keep going down the line of contingent objects for an infinite duration, and thus never reach an ultimate explanation of the entire set, or, we can come to a final and necessary sufficient reason for the entire set itself. To this Leibniz says, an ultimate explanation is grounded upon something "metaphysically necessary"; or [to be defined], a "thing"s essence to include existence". According to Leibniz, the fact that the entire set extends to an infinite amount of contingent things accounting for one another outside of themselves is not an explanation for why the entire set itself exists. We therefore, need an ultimate explanation of the given set. This ultimate explanation, as Richard Swinburne defines, "A complete explanation of some events in which all the factors involved have no further explanation, full or partial, in terms of earlier causes constitutes what I shall call an ultimate explanation of the event. (R. Swinburne, "Is There a God?"; cp. 2010, p. 36)