God's Existence

Well, if my opponent is not going to argue, I'll offer more arguments. I've already provided the Cosmological Argument from Efficient Causality: 1. All things must have a cause. 2. A necessary being exists. 3. God is the only necessary being. 4. God exists. We go from 1 to 2 because if something has a contingent being as a cause, then that being also must have a cause, leading to an infinite regress. The only way to avoid the infinite regress is to posit a First Cause, or a necessary being who is responsible for his own existence. But I will also offer the Cosmological Argument from Contingency: (1) Every contingent fact has an explanation. (2) There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. (3) Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. (4) This explanation must involve a necessary being. (5) This necessary being is God. (1) This comes from the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which states that everything has a sufficient explanation for its being. There are a number of explanations and proofs of the PSR. The first is just the definition of a contingent fact is a fact that relies on some other fact to prove it. The second is a proof which posits the weak PSR to prove the strong PSR. The weak PSR is: "every contingent fact has a possible compete explanation." This is obviously true because we could make up explanations even for things we currently cannot explain and even if we cannot prove the explanation is true. For example, if someone shoots us a mean glance, we can think of at least 5 possible explanations (we slept with their wife, we ate the last doughnut at the staff meetings, etc). The weak PSR can be translated to "there is a possible world in which proposition p is fully explained by explanation x." If we define p* as "proposition p is true and has no explanation," then in possible world x* above, where x fully explains p, that means that x also fully explains p*, which results in a contradiction because x cannot both fully explain p AND have p have no explanation at the same time. So to avoid this contradiction, we must accept the strong PSR. Lastly, the PSR just holds true in our everyday lives. If contingent facts do not require an explanation and A is not required to cause B, but B can merely happen with no explanation, then all of science become unnecessary. If you're driving in a car for example and the car is drifting to the right, the passenger may ask "why is the car drifting to the right" and the driver could respond "it just is" before they both hit a telephone and die - if the PSR is untrue. If it's true, it's likely the wheels are out of alignment. (2) This comes from the infinite regress: if there is a contingent fact, then it must be explained by another contingent fact. Go back far enough, and one contingent fact must have spawned all other contingent facts that we currently have. (3) this is from 1 (4) This is from the definition of a necessary being and the principle of identity, meaning that a necessary being has itself as its cause. (5) God is the only necessary being, so it must be God or not God, and if God is the only one, we know it's not "not God," so through a disjunctive syllogism, we know it must be God. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT I'll offer more proof for fine tuning of the constants in certain physics equations, that if altered by even tiny amounts, would result in a very different Universe unviable for life, which is evidence of a Creator who fine tuned these constants. If any of these numbers deviated by the amount shown to the right, then the Universe would either not be capable of existing or would be unsustainable for any forms of life: Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1x10^40 Expansion Rate of Universe 1x10^55 Mass of Universe 1x10^59 Cosmological Constant 1x10^120 Also, if any of these were altered by small amounts, life would be unviable: strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above ratio of number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed entropy level of the universe if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form mass density of the universe if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support initial uniformity of radiation if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space average distance between galaxies if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit density of galaxy cluster if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable cosmological constant if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars [2] [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://tinyurl.com...