God Exists

Contingency Argument P1) whatever exists has a sufficient reason either in the necessity of its own nature if it is a necessary entity or in a transcedent Sufficient reason if it is contingent. P2) The universe exists Conclusion 1 (from P1 and P2): universe has an sufficient reason either in the necessity of its own nature if it is necessary or in a transcendent sufficient reason if it is contingent P3) The universe is contingent Conclusion 2 (from P3 and C1): Universe has a transcendent sufficient reason. Conclusion 2 gives us a cause transcendent to nature, space and time and matter and thus supernatural, timeless, spaceless and immaterial.So let's defend premises 1 and 3.Premise 1 relies on the same reasoning behind the Principle of Sufficient Reason that every fact has a sufficient reason. [1] Let me give 5 lines of evidence for the PSR.1- Inudctive evidence: From our experience, everything has a sufficient reason. Babies have sufficient reasons in their parents. Houses have sufficient reasons in builders. Cars have sufficient reasons in manufacturers. Books have authors. Tables have carpenters and so on. However, some objects like numbers and tautologies have a sufficient reason in the necessity of their own nature. They had to be that way. They can not not exist.2- Scientific pressuposition: Science presupposes the PSR because it looks for an explanation for everything. It makes no sense whatsoever to look for something that you do not believe is there. It's looking for your keys in the house when you know it is not there and believe it is in the car. Since Science is working fine, we can also affirm that its pressupositions are true.3- Atheist Pressuposition: Even atheists themselves pressupose the framework of the PSR. If we begin by denying the PSR, why do I have to provide any sufficient reasons for the proposition "God exists"?4- Reductio Ad Absurdum: There is no way anyone can even deny the PSR. The framework of the PSR says that every fact, whether proposition, claim or entity, needs to have some sufficient reason for it. So ultimately you can not criticize the PSR since if you want to criticize the PSR you will have to give me some sufficient reasons to justify your claim "the PSR is false" is true but then that would mean that the only way you can even attempt to argue rationally against and criticize the PSR is if the PSR is already true. Any criticism of the PSR is unjustified and irrational and therefore must be rejected because it presupposes the framework of the PSR as in needing sufficient reasons. So ultimately nobody can justifiably deny the PSR.5- Richard Taylor's burgulary: Suppose you were to come back home after a long day and find the glasses shattered, the wallet and cash stolen and the TV gone. You would naturally conclude that the sufficient reason is that a burgular came in and decked the house while you were gone. You would then use the sufficient reason to go and call 911. I do not think that any of us would come back home and just declare it is inexplicable. This demonstrates that we all presuppose the PSR in our lives and thus it is ad hoc to deny the PSR.Here is an entire library of arguments for the PSR. [2]A necessary fact (entity or proposition) has a sufficient reason in the necessity of its own nature. Take the proposition that "bachelors are unmarried". It is necessary by definition that bachelors are unmarried. It can not be any other way and thus its sufficient reason is in the necessity of its own nature. A contingent fact is the opposite of a necessary fact and thus does not contain its own sufficient reason. Premise 3 is the easiest premise to defend in natural theology. It is confirmed by the fact that the universe is contingent meaning there is nothing self-contradictory about the universe failing to exist or being different unlike a necessary fact which entail logical contradictions if different or wrong. For example, The necessary fact that all bachelors are unmarried is not contingent because it would entail a logical contradiction if it was wrong i.e. that all bachelors are married. This is an obvious logical contradiction. It would also be a logical contradiction if it was different, if bachelors were not unmarried but anything else, that would entail a logical contradiction. But the universe existing is not necessary and is contingent since no logical contradictions would entail if spacetime was different or failed to exist at all. For example, if the universe was different as in with extra space dimensions or different elementary particles like we see in M theory and colliding branes, no logical contradiction. There could even be some possible world where spacetime fabric and its components did not exist and no logical contradictions would result. Thus the conclusion logically follows the Universe has a sufficient reason transcedent to itself. A Sufficient reason transcendent to the universe (all of spacetime and the natural realm whether mulltiverse, cyclical universes, M theory) would be transcedent to the natural realm, space, time, matter, energy and would thus be supernatural, spaceless, timeless, immaterial. If the cause was contingent then we need a sufficient reason and if its sufficient reason was contingent, then we need another sufficient reason, and if that was contingent, we need yet another sufficient reason and so on. This series could terminate in a necessary being and then we would have a supernatural, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, necessary cause of the universe or it could regress ad infintum which would lead to an epistemic infinite regress. We can also shave off an infinity of explanations over a single necessary explanation by Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor tells us to shave off the contingent intermediates between the necessary cause and the universe. Thus the cause of the universe is a supernatural, spaceless, timeless, immaterial and most likely necessary cause.Only two things fit that descriptions: minds or the products of the mind (abstract objects) but since abstract objects like the number 8 do not cause anything, we can conclude it is a mind as well.Note that it makes no difference whether the universe had a beginning or not since the pioneers did not try argue for that and even some believed that the universe is eternal. [3] It would be like a candle eternally causing a flame.Ontological ArgumentP1: It is possible that a maximally great being existsP2: If it is possible that a MGB exists then he exists in some possible worldP3: If a MGB exists in some possible worlds, An MGB exists in all possible worldsConclusion : Since the actual world is a possible world, an MGB exists in the actual world.Premise 1 is obvious enough since a maximally great being would contain the great-making properties to the fullest extent. THe great-making properties being traits that are desirable to have like knowledge, power, necessity, etc. Since each great-making property deals with a different domain, they can not be contradictory since there is no area of overlap and since the MGB is not self-contradictory, it could exist unlike self-contradictory proposition like an "unmarried wife" that is impossible to exist.Premise 2 follows since it is only if something is a self-contradiction that it can exist in no possible world. For example, a married bacehlor is a self-contradiction and can not exist in any possible world. But since we established that an MGB is not self-contradictory, it can exist in at least one possible world. Premise 3 follows by the great-making property of necessity. It also follows by axiom S5 of modal logic. [4] The conclusion is that an MGB or Maximally Great Being exists in all possible worlds including the real world. A maximally great being would have great-making properties like necessity, power, knowledge, love, goodness, etc. to the fullest extent meaning that a necessary, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and all-good being exists.Possible objection refuted:Con could fall into a trap of defining a unicorn or a beer or a steak as necessary and then plugging in that steak/unicorn/beer into the original argument and just claim that there is a maximally great unicorn or pizza or beer.The reason this objection falls and is taken as a joke in the academic community is because all of those things are contingent and can not be necessary. Since they are contingent but Con would define them as necessary anyways, we would have a contingnet necessary which is of course a self-contradiction like "married wive" and is not possible to exist thus premise 1 and 3 fail.They are contingent because a unicorn is contingent on food, its parents to give birth to itself, water, oxygen, molecular bonds, etc.Beer is contingent on the farmer, the brewer, maltose, molecular bonds, etc.Steak is contingent on the cow, the farmer, cellular biochemistry, molecular bonds, etc.Since they do not possess the trait of necessity and are contingent, premise 3 fails and since a contingent necessary is a self-contradiction, it is impossible to exist just like the self-contradiction a married bachelor is impossible to exist.Sources:[1] - https://plato.stanford.edu...;[2] - http://alexanderpruss.com...;[3] - Ibn Sina, though Muslim, believed in an eternal universe (https://plato.stanford.edu...). Al Farabi, though Muslim, believed in an eternal universe (https://plato.stanford.edu...). They were influenced by Aristotle who held the same thing. Leibniz, though Christian, was agnostic on whether it had a beginning or was eternal and it can not be proven to be either (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) [4] - https://plato.stanford.edu...;The Lion is out and ready to party hard.Happy New Years Con and the audience!!