God exists.

First of all is the original question "God exists." The notion of God that con is talking about is the "Judeo-Christian God." Therefore, we are talking about the supreme being that is unique, Omni-potent, knowing, present, good, etc. We are not talking about ancient Greek gods or the gods of any other religion(s). Judaism and Christianity are specific revelations of God. It is possible that a god exists and each of these be false or it is possible that God exists and they both be true or only Judaism be true. That is a question of what the specific god in question has revealed about himself. That is not what we are debating today. The way I understand it is that we are arguing whether or not the being "God" as generally defined and understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition exists. Because of this, my arguments will not specifically be in support of Judaism or Christianity. My arguments will attempt to show that God as generally understood in these traditions does in fact exist. Next, the BOP. The proper a priori position before any arguments are given is to withhold belief in the specific being. My job therefore is to demonstrate that this being does in fact exist and that one should assent to this truth. Con seems to be arguing against this being and therefore shares the burden of proof because he is making a positive claim, namely, the claim that the being in question does not in fact exist. Now for my arguments. These are not all possible arguments for the God of J-C tradition. if con feels as though my arguments are too broad and need to be narrowed down for the debate, I will do that and either provide different arguments or clarify the ones below. I will offer 3. They will start from the effect and proceed to a cause without a priori understanding of that cause. I. Argument from Contingency Definitions: A contingent thing is something that depends on something else for its existence. A necessary thing is that which exists by the necessity of its own nature. P1) If all that exists in the world is contingent things, there is no ultimate explanation P2) There must be an ultimate explanation for existence C1) It is impossible that everything be contingent therefore we must admit a necessary being. Proof of 1- A contingent thing points to something else for its existence as a cause or explanation. This is because the nature of the thing in question does not tell us that it exists. A contingent thing therefore is the kind of thing that might exist but might not. Therefore, the explanation for its existence cannot be in itself (i.e. cannot reside in the nature of the thing) but must be in something else that gave it existence. I can further defend this premise if you wish, but for now all I will say is this: If the sum of existing things is contingent, the sum of existing things must point outside itself for an explanation of its existence but there would be nothing outside of the sum of existing things. Therefore, there would be no explanation if we postulate everything exists contingently. Proof of 2: This is a simple intuitive claim that we should accept if we want to be reasonable. Also, it can be defended using a number of metaphysical ideas. For the sake of time I will just say that if there is no ultimate explanation, it is in principle at least highly unlikely anything exists. Here is an analogy to sum up the argument: A cart is being pulled in a train. The movement of this cart is contingent if it depends on something else for its movement. The cart depends on something else for its movement if the type of cart it is cannot explain why it is moving (i.e. it has no engine of its own). If all carts were like this, we could have no explanation of the train moving because there would be no engine. yet we need an explanation because if there is no explanation, there is no movement at all (we need an engine). Hence a car must exist that includes an engine and explains the movement of the train. this is an analogy its not meant to be perfect just to show what I mean. The conclusion of this argument is a being that exists by the necessity of its nature meaning its essence and existence are somehow one. This sounds a lot like Exodus 3:14. Argument II - Fine tuning of the universe 1 There exists anthropic coincidences that are necessary for human life 2 These may either be explained by chance or by design 3 Since there are so many it is near impossible they exist by chance C They exist by design We conclude therefore: There is at least 1 entity that has designed the universe with human beings as at least part of the goal. This entity(s) must exist outside of the known universe and have the power to design the laws of the universe. The God of the J-C tradition is a reasonable conclusion (although not definite) because this God is described as a personal being that creates with humans in mind. P1 is accepted by almost all physicists. P3 is the main premise. I will leave this for a later time because I am running out of characters. I will handle objections round 2. Argument III- The soul 1 Humans are at least part immaterial 2 Matter cannot produce the immaterial C There exists an immaterial entity that gives an immaterial component to humans Sounds like Genesis 2:7. Here is the defense of P1 using qualia: Imagine you are locked in a room from birth that is black and white. You have never seen the color red. Yet you are a color scientist who sets out to understand red. You study from books and measurements all that can be known about light and visual perception. after all this you know all you can know about the physical qualities of red. you step out of the room once this is complete and see red for the first time. Do you learn something new? Yes because you learn the experience of red. Yet you knew all physical traits of red, so there must be a non-physical part of the subjective experience of red. P2- an effect must exist in some way in the cause. out of chrts. rnd 2