God exists (pro) vs God does not exist (con)

Contention 1: argument from contingency Premise 1 : Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, whether in the necessity of its existence (necessary) or in an external explanation (contingency). Premise 2 : If the universe has an explanation, it would be an external explanation due to the contingency of the universe Premise 3 : The universe exists C1) The universe has an explanation for its existence (from P1 and P3) C2) The universe's explanation is grounded in a necessary cause due to its contingency (from P2 and P3) For this argument to stand, I would have to defend its three premises since the conclusions logically follow from the premises. However, I really do not have to defend premise 3 since denying it would reveal you are not seeking the truth. Premise 1 defended : Science ) To reject that everything has an explanation would be to undermine the foundations of science that entail curiosity and finding an explanation for everything. The law of cause and effect perfectly embodies this principle. The law of cause and effect bluntly states that every effect has an explanation in an external cause. This is of course assuming that the object is contingent. However, science agrees that abstract objects like numbers do not really have an explanation and they just are which means that abstract objects are necessary. This is a demonstration by science that everything has its own explanation whether in an external cause (law of cause and effect) or in the necessity of their nature (numbers). Logic and philosophy ) Premise 2 defended : Principle of sufficient reasoning (PSR): a well-accepted principle among ancient and contemporary philosophers alike is that everything has an explanation, cause or reason. To illustrate this, I will provide a scenario. Imagine that you were hiking with a group of friends through the woods and you stumbled across a ball, You would intuitively wonder how it got there? You wonder to yourself why is this ball here? Did a kid throw it here? Did a previous hiker accidentally drop it? You definitely would not just waive it off as being necessary and it must exist there and its explanation is grounded in the necessity of its nature. You would intuitively assume that it must have had a cause or an explanation for being there. This scenario would not change based on the size of the ball or multiplying it by incomprehensible folds to the size of the universe Premise 2 defended : It is commonly held that the universe is contingent for two reasons: it had a beginning and it is changeable. Background : a necessary entity is that which accounts for its own existence. In order to account for your own existence, you would have to be independent of others who will not change you or influence you at any time. Therefore you and your explanation would have to be eternal (no time for anything before it to explain your existence) and mute (no influence from others). a non-necessary entity by contrast is not eternal, had a beginning and can be changed and is contingent. a non-necessary contingent entity does not have an explanation in its own existence and therefore reuires an external explanation. [1] The universe is changeable and is not eternal, and is therefore contingent and reuires an external explanation. I will demonstrate so using science, philosophy and logic. Science ) On change : The universe changes all the time. Some stars are born, some die, some explode. Energy is transformed from other forms to heat. The second law of thermodynamics acknowledges this change and states that entropy tends to increase overtime in a close system. If the choas and disorder increases in a system, this is an illustration of change. If the universe changes, it does not have to be that way as in the preceding state, therefore it is contingent and does not have to be "one way" like numbers. On the beginning : Scientists believe that the universe popped into existence and started expanding fourteen billion years ago. This is confirmed by the big bang theory which in its classical [2] states that the universe had a start. Secondly, there is empirical evidence that the universe began expanding such as the CMBR and the redshift of galaxies. The BGV theorem entails that *any* universe that had been expanding over its history has had a space-time beginning (even if there is a multiverse). Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics reveals that the universe can not be eternal because had that been the case, we would have no usable energy by now and the only available form of energy would be only heat. If the universe had a beginning, it is not a necessary entity because its explanation does not exist within it and had to rely on something else to account for its beginning (an external explanation) Logic) On change : Logically, just looking around things change. Trees die, animals are born, Ice and snow in the poles melts. If the universe has an explanation grounded in its necessity, it should be mute like numbers and other necessary entities , there should be no reason why it changes. On beginning : There is tons of empirical and definitive evidence that the big bang happened. However, assuming that the singularity prior to the big bang was past-eternal raises a few questions. If the singularity of the big bang is past-eternal, then it would have to undergo an infinite past sequence of events (due to being forever in the past) before getting to the big bang meaning that the singularity would never get to the rapid expansion of the big bang due to being eternally stuck in past infinity before getting to the big bang (infinite regress). Implications : The argument establishes that the universe has an external explanation. If the universe has an external explanation, that explanation is beyond the universe and nature and is therefore transcendent (external to the universe) and supernatural (outside nature). The cause must be necessary to avoid ad infinitum or infinite regress of external explanations. The cause must be outside the dimensions of the unvierse since it is external to it and existed before it to create the universe and therefore spaceless, timeless, immaterial, non-physical. The uncaused, necessary, timeless, supernatural and transcendent cause of the universe fits perfectly with God. Contention 2 : Kalam argument Premise 1 : Whatever begins to exist has a cause P2: the universe began to exist Conclusion : The universe has a cause Premise one stands ) Outline : This premise does not state that everything has a cause so therefore the universe has one. It states that everything that begins to exist has a cause because it is ridiculous that things can just pop into existence uncaused. Science : The law of cause and effect is the cornerstone behind this premise. The law precisely states that every effect has a cause and no effect can merely just pop into existence out of nothing without a cause. Logic : Logic would demonstrate that whatever begins to exist must have a cause because it is impossible and ridiculous for things to begin to exist without a cause. How do we know this? It has never been observed that things can just pop into existence (or begin to exist) without a cause. It is impossible and ridicolous if anyone denies this premise and indirectly implies that bikes, ice cream, cars, houses can just merely pop into existence from nothing and by nothing. Premise 2) Science : a) empirical evidence for expansion (CMBR, Redshift of galaxies) + BGV theorem (any expanding universe has a beginning even if in a multiverse and if the universe was contracting before expanding, that universe is too unstable to exist) b) The big bang theory, the most accepted that states there is a beginning to the universe fourteen billion years ago. (refer to previous diagram) c) Second law of thermodynamics - Usable energy turns to heat and atoms become disordered overtime. If the universe is eternal, there would be no usable energy and only heat by now since all of the usable energy would turn to heat. However, there is usable energy therefore the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. d) Singularity and infinite sequence of events. If the singularity of the big bang or the universe is past-eternal, then it would have to undergo an infinite past sequence of events before getting to the big bang meaning that the singularity would never get to the rapid expansion of the big bang due to being eternally stuck in past infinity before getting to the big bang (infinite regress). Implications : Now all we have proven is that there is a cause. The cause would have to be outside of the universe and all of nature inside the universe therefore must be transcendent (outside universe) and supernatural (outside nature). The cause must be outside of the dimensions of the universe because it existed independently before the universe to create it and the cause must be therefore timeless, spaceless, immaterial, non-physical. It must also be personal because it acts upon the volition of free will and decided to create the universe fourteen billion years ago rather than 2 billion years ago or 20,000 years ago or 5 minutes ago. Therefore it must have free will and be a personal being. The cause must be uncaused or created by something uncaused to steer away from the logical fallacy of infinite regress. This is the exact definition of God. You will have to turn to the supernatural since using nature and natural laws to account for the existence of the unvierse would be a catch 22. You would need natural processes to create the universe but you would need the universe for nature to even exist. Possible objections : Fallacy of composition : "Premise one" = the first premise is not saying that everything (parts) has a cause so the universe (whole). The first premise is declaring that whatever starts to exist must logically have a cause and can not just pop into existence uncaused