God is the Best Explanation for Why Something Exists Rather than Nothing

I want to start out by reminding you what my contention was. I am arguing that God exists by demonstrating that an un-embodied mind must exist by the necessity of its own nature in which the potency necessary for a contingent reality may be found. In other words, there must be a mind behind the universe. I am not arguing for the Christian God. My arguments would work just as well for Islam, Judaism, or even Deism. If we wanted to get into Christian particulars, we would need to look at Jesus Christ but that is outside the scope of this debate. For that reason my opponent"s references to the Bible, holy scriptures, or religious belief are simply misguided. I made no appeal to such things at any point in my opening argument, nor did my conclusions result in Christian particulars. Furthermore, my opponent seems to think that the Big Bang model is an explanation for the origin of the universe. This is misguided. The Big Bang model is a description of the early expansion of the universe, but it has nothing to say about its explanation. This would be a bit like saying that a physical description of sudden and rapid combustion and expansion is an adequate explanation of what caused an explosion (say of a stick of dynamite, for example). In the same way that the potential and chemical energy within the stick of dynamite is logically prior to an explanation of its explosion, the origin of the universe is logically prior to the description of its early expansion (the Big Bang model). My opponent has said that I have given no evidence for the controversial premise of my argument, "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." You"ll remember that I did give an account for why this explanation must be God. The universe (as I am using the term here) refers to all of spacetime reality, including all matter and energy. Therefore, whatever necessary reality is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe cannot be made up of matter or energy, cannot occupy space, and cannot exist within time. An explanation cannot be composed of the very things that it explains. If this necessary reality explains the existence of matter, for example, then it cannot be composed of matter. Since this necessary reality explains the existence of physical reality, it cannot be a physical (concrete) object. In other words, it must be an abstract (rather than concrete) object. As I said in the beginning, there are only two candidates for abstract objects, numbers or an un-embodied mind. Since numbers do not stand in causal relationships, this necessary reality must be an un-embodied mind. Why should we think that a necessary reality exists at all? I gave an account for this too using the chandelier analogy. Let me give you another one from Thomas Aquinas. Imagine that a ball is being pushed by a stick. You might ask, "What is pushing the stick?" and the answer could come back, "Another stick of course!" You could then ask, "What is pushing the stick that pushes the stick that pushes the ball?" and the answer might come back, "Why, a third stick of course!!" That could go on for a while, but not forever. If there was no beginning point, no original "pusher" that itself is not pushed, then there would be nothing to push any of the sticks. In the context of contingent and necessary realities, you might ask, "What is contingent object X" contingent on? The answer might come back, "Contingent object Y". Again, this can only go on so far before you must get to an object that itself is non-contingent (necessary) on which all other objects are ultimately contingent. This non-contingent explanation for all contingent objects is what we call "God". Allow me to try and sketch the line of thinking this way: Premise One: If no necessary reality exists, then no contingent realities can exist. (see my example above) Premise Two: Contingent realities exist. Premise Three: Therefore, a necessary reality exists. Now my opponent has asked, "Well if everything needs an explanation, then so does God!" This is quite correct. As I said in premise one, Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. The explanation of God"s existence is the necessity of his own nature. I"m not just presuming that God exists in a necessary way, I have given the arguments above to demonstrate it. Let me put it this way, I have given arguments that demonstrate that an un-embodied mind exists by the necessity of its own nature, and this is what theists are referring to when using the English word "God".