God in nature (intelligent design) [Version 2]

Hi! I look forward to this debate. Obviously my arguments are going to be relatively typical arguments for God's existence, but I will try my best! I will present 3 arguments - of which, if true, will prove that God is the best explanation for nature. COSMOLOGICAL 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2) The universe began to exist 3) Therefore the universe has a cause. This cause - bringing time and space into existence, has to be: timeless, immaterial, changeless, personal and hugely powerful. So what fits into this criteria? Well, there are only 2 options - Abstract Objects (So numbers, or Laws), or an unembodied mind or conscience (i.e 'God'). Since Abstract Objects cannot cause anything, by deductive reasoning the cause of the universe is an unembodied mind. PREMISE 1 What reasons do we have to think that Premise 1 is correct? Well, I think we can identify 3 main reasons: - Something cannot come from nothing - the golden rule of Metaphysics. 'Out of nothing, nothing comes'. - If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why everything and anything comes into being from nothing. - Common experience and scientific evidence confirm it. All around us, we see things beginning to exist and all of them have a cause, whether it is efficient or material. This is always verified and never falsified, and appeals to inductive reasoning. PREMISE 2 What about premise 2? We can prove premise 2 for two main reasons: - The Big-Bang; By far the most accepted model about how the universe began is the Big Bang theorem. We are all familiar with this - the universe expanded from a singularity a finite time ago. The biggest progress concerning the beginning of the universe was established in 2003, when three leading cosmologists: Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has on average been expanding throughout its history, cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. In other words, the universe began to exist. - An actual infinity is an impossibility. To give an analogy from William Lane Craig, say I have an infinity number of coins, numbered 1,2,3 etc. up to infinity. If i took away all the even numbered coins, i would be left with all the odd numbered coins, so infinty. Infinity ~ infinity = infinity. Now if i took away all the coins numbered greater than five. I would then be left with 5 coins. So infinity ~ infinity = 5. This is contradictory, as if i take the same value away from infinity, it comes up with different results. This is merely an example of the absurdity of an infinite past. PREMISE 3 Therefore the conclusion follows inescapably. MORAL ARGUMENT 1) If God does not exist, then Objective Moral Values and Duties do not exist 2) Objective Moral Values and Duties do exist 3) Therefore God exists PREMISE 1 If God does not exist, there is no transcendent source for moral values and duties. So if God does not exist, morals are subjective: No moral action is fundamentally better or worse than another. Similarly if God exists, morals are objective - God is the source of morals, and moral actions are good or bad according to his standards. If Objective Moral Values and Duties do exist, it would state that helping a homeless man is better as a moral action than say, child abuse. PREMISE 2 How do we know morals are objective? Well, through personal experience. When we see an animal, we know that petting it would be morally better than attacking it. Equally, when we see a child, we know that talking in a friendly manner to it is morally better than assaulting it. I don't think that anybody who isn't a sociopath can deny that morals are objective. PREMISE 3 The conclusion follows logically and necessarily. ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES For this argument, I am going to state three historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Fact 1: On the Sunday after his crucifixion, Jesus" tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Jacob Kremer, a New Testament historian has stated: "By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb." Fact 2: On separate occasions, different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to New Testament critic Gerd L"demann, "It may be taken as historically certain that . . . the disciples had experiences after Jesus" death in which Jesus appeared to them as the Risen Christ." Fact 3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. N. T. Wright, an eminent New Testament scholar, said: "That is why, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him." So why are these facts reliable? Why didn't the original witnesses 'make them up'? Well, put simply, they had every disposition to the contrary. Fact 1: Here, we need to look at the context of Jewish culture at that time. The witness of women was almost completely disregarded by the Jews - they weren't even allowed to present their witness in a court of law. So we can quite confidently say that this is unbiased as a source. Fact 2: These appearances of Jesus were witnessed not only by believers, but also by unbelievers and skeptics, who would be more than ready to explain away the appearances. Imagine if Jesus appeared to Richard Dawkins - he would never believe what he was seeing and so the witness of the skeptics is considered reliable. Fact 3: Again, we need to look at Jewish culture. In a Jewish culture where the Concept of Jesus as Messiah was very controversial, the disciples had every reason to disregard what they saw. But they didn't - and the explosion of the early Church is evidence of their sudden belief that Jesus was the Son of God. And we can see the consequences these Christians faced for believing - they suffered decades; even centuries of severe persecution. To disregard their beliefs was an easy route, but they knew the truth and stayed true to their beliefs. Naturalists have attempted to explain away these facts, but their theorems, such as the disciples stole the body or Jesus wasn"t really dead, have been universally rejected by contemporary historical scholarship In other words, there are no competent naturalistic explanation for these facts. But here's the thing - the BEST explaination for these facts is that Jesus was who he said he was. And therefore it follows that God exists. We can set this out in an argument: 1. There are three established facts about Jesus: his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples" belief in his resurrection. 2. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts. 3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that God exists. 4. Therefore, God exists. CONCLUSION I hope that I have firmly established that, following the arguments I have presented - from the cause of the universe, to our sense of morality to the explanation of the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth, it can be concluded that God does indeed exist in Nature. Sources: Alan Guth: The Inflationary Universe J.P Moreland with Dr. William Lane Craig: Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte Gerd L"demann, What Really Happened to Jesus? N. T. Wright, "The New Unimproved Jesus," Christianity Today Debate: Dr William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krausse