The Statement 'God Exists' is Rationally Justifiable.

BOF: It should be noted that Con, to deny my resolution, must disprove all of my arguments, for even if only one stands out, the resolution stands out too. Clarification: > Event: caused entity, or existent entity. > Cause: a cause of an entity B is a necessary event A which which B isn’t an Event (as in caused entity). > Efficient Cause: an efficient cause of an entity A is a necessary entity without which A isn’t an Event (as in existent entity). > First Cause: uncaused Cause. > If an entity has no cause, then it’s necessary. > If an entity has a cause, then it’s contingent. > Con tried to inductively falsify the existence of Fist Cause (or necessary existence) by applying my postulate on it, ignoring the fact that a First Cause is, by definition, not an Event, & thus does not obey inductive Causality. Which I clarified in R2 Argument 4. > Con redefines the Universe, but since his definition is included in mine, it will not affect my reasoning. Defence of: ‘The statement ‘God Exists’ is Deductively True’ - Existence is necessary to itself, because otherwise it would be contingent. > If Existence is contingent then all existent entities are -in essence- contingent, & thus not necessary. The Universe, ensemble of all existent entities, is therefore, either -in essence- contingent itself, or not contingent & thus necessary. >> In case the Universe is not necessary then it has an external cause. Its cause can not be contingent, because otherwise it would be part of the Universe. Therefore, the cause is necessary. => Therefore, in all cases, Existence is necessary to itself, & thus there is a necessary existent or: a -essence- Essential (necessary, non-contingent) Existence. - The -essence of the- Essential Existence is Singular, in the sense that it is: Unique & Simple. > Suppose we have two essential existences, they are thus mutually independent. Both are either identical (one) or not. >> In case they are not identical, then there exists a difference. The difference is either necessary, or not. >>> In case it’s necessary (i.e has no cause), then it’s an essential existence itself, absurd! >>> In case it isn’t, then it has a cause. The cause is either one of two essential existences or neither. >>>> In case the cause is either, then one of the two will precede the other, & thus neither will be mutually independent, Absurd! >>>> In case the cause is neither, then another entity is the cause for the difference, & thus neither are essentially existent, Absurd! => In all cases, two non-identical essential existences (or more) are Absurd! > Suppose we have a non-simple essential existence. With the same reasoning, suppose there are two parts in the essential existence. Both can not be essentially existent, & thus one of the two is, & thus the other isn’t. ==>> The -essence of the- Essential Existence is Singular (simple & unique). *As per the definition of Efficient Cause, & the fact that it’s Singular, the Essential Existence is thus the Efficient First Cause, which I’ll be identifying with God. Defence of the choice of definition (not essentially part of the resolution, but will serve a purpose later) - The Essential Existence is thus the sole cause of existence, i.e. it alone has the Attribute through which existence is attributed, that is Will. & thus all else is contingently existent. - An Attribute of the Essential Existence is either the Essence itself or dependent on the Essence, otherwise the Essence would be dependent on the Attribute, & that’s absurd! > Model-1: In case the Attribute(s) is(are) the Essence itself: >>> Then, particularly, the attribute of Will can not change, otherwise it would violate Singularity. & thus all existent entities -subsequent to the attribute of Will- are existent from necessity, because, in this case, Will & thus Essence is necessary & so is its effect. >> The Will in this case must be absolutely Free, for it & the Essence are one, & thus unconditioned & unrestricted. >> & so, whatever exists is not just possible but also necessary, not from within itself, but because of the necessary absolute Will of the Essential Existence. In contrast, whatever does not exist is not just contingent but also impossible. >> & Thus, The Essential Existence has a Will that encompasses all that is ever possible. >>> Will entails: Knowledge & Power. Since all attributes are essentially one, they are all, thus, identical. => Therefore, in this case, the Essential Existence has absolute Free Will, has Knowledge of all that ever exists, & has Power over all that ever exists. > Model-2: In case it’s dependent on the Essence: >> Then all Attributes are separate from the Essence, though existent from necessity. >> & so, everything contingent (not the Essential Existence) may exist or may not. Thus, prior to its existence, everything is equally inexistent. & therefore, the Will to attribute existence to the inexistent is absolutely Free, for all contingent entities (not yet willed into existence) are equally inexistent, there are no preferences. >>> Subsequently, absolute Free Will entails absolute Power, for having the absolute choice of willing some contingent entities over others (prior to their existence) entails having the choice of willing all contingent entities, & thus having absolute Power. >>> Moreover, absolute Free Will entails absolute Knowledge, for having the absolute power of choice from within equals having absolute Knowledge. => Therefore, in this case also, the Essential Existence has absolute Free Will, Knowledge of all that is ever possible, & Power over all is ever possible. ==>> The Singular Non-Contingent Essential Existence Uncaused Efficient First Cause is the One Creator (Originator), All-Powerful & All-Knowing, disjoint from all that exists. & thus appropriate for a definition of God. Defence of: ‘the statement ‘God Exists’ is Inductively True’ > The Law of Causality is inductively True, & thus events are consecutive. > An infinite succession of non-identical consecutive events, states, entities. . . would be impossible, because otherwise, any event or state in such succession would be preceded by an infinity of them, & thus never becoming actualised. > Thus, an actual infinite in space or time is impossible, for there is a strict order in both Time & Space, & thus consecutive events or states are non-identical. & we know the Universe is finite in space, for its mass is also finite. => Ref to Argument 2. - Con claims that -inductive- Causality can only be possible under the Laws of Physics & the Arrow of Time, & he even adds Time, however, he does not prove his claim. He has to show that Time precedes causality, which is unlikely, because according to quantum theory causality exists even beyond the barrier of Planck (i.e. atemporal causal quantum phenomenons), which suggest that causality precedes time itself. Either way I don't see the point! - Con abusively confuses non-Causality with indeterminism. While it’s a well know fact that Causality is incontestable in quantum physics. Actually, quantum field theory (Dirac’s Equation) states that if causality is True then antimatter must exist, which we can empirically verify (positron) [1]. - As far as Physics are concerned, causality is inductively True. & it’s proven through Thermodynamics (entropy), Quantum Mechanics (wave function collapse). . .[2] - In Special Relativity or even String Theory, causality is not violated either. The deterministic nature of SR does not allow effects to influence their causes, & so the arrow of Time is not violated. - Con also claims that Causality is flat out false outside Time! I am interested in how Con can prove that. In contrast, it would be more rational to suggest causality outside the known Universe than to deny it, for if it’s true inside then maybe it’s true outside too. Again, I don't see the point. - Con evokes the model of the Eternal Universe based on SR, however he does not prove it. While it’s an incomplete Theory & does not account for Quantum phenomenons. >>> It should be noted that Con has to not just suggest another justifiable resolution other than my own, but he must falsify mine too, as to prove that my resolution is not rationally justifiable. - Nonetheless: > If the Universe, in reality, conforms to the Quantum model (Probabilistic) then Argument 2 R2 proves the Essential Existence corresponding to Model-1. > If the Universe, in reality, conforms with the SR model (Eternalistic) then, the Universe would be eternal in Spacetime, but that doesn’t say anything about the eternity of Spacetime itself. >> If, then, the Spacetime is not necessarily existent, then it has a Cause, & thus falls under Model-2. >> If the Spacetime is necessarily existent then it falls under Model-1. => Either way, God Exists, corresponding to either Model-1 or Model-2. Defence of: ‘the Statement ‘God Exists’ is Empirically Unfalsifiable, though Rationally Expected.’ - God is the Uncaused Cause, & does not, thus, obey the Law of Causality, which then invalidates Abductive Reasoning. Because, Abductive Reasoning states: for every given fact, there is a sufficient, though not unique, possible plausible verifiable explanation. An Uncaused Cause is not an Event, it, by definition, does not have an explanation, & thus can not be empirically verifiable. - God is Rationally Expected, because, the Universe either has an explanation or doesn’t. In case it does, then it corresponds to Model-2, in case it doesn’t then it corresponds to Model-1. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;