It is Probable That God Exists

In this debate, I will be defending two arguments in support of the proposition that the existence of God is probable. These arguments will be the Kalam cosmological argument (KCA) and a Thomistic variant of the teleological argument (TA). 1. The KCAThe kalam cosmological argument is deceptively simple, and consists of three premises:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. The universe began to exist3. Therefore, the universe has a causeThe first premise expresses the metaphysical truth that something cannot come from nothing, the denial of which is absurd. If something could come into existence without a cause, then it's odd as to why we do not have any examples of this constantly happening. Why doesn't everything and anything pop into existence without a cause? Indeed, why doesn't a black hole suddenly appear and consume our solar system? It can't be because nothingness is constrained by physical laws, for there is nothing to constrain. To deny the first premise is to thus deny causal regularity. Moreover, philosopher David Oderberg has argued that the first premise is a necessary truth. [1] However, I will not expound on this unless Con challenges the first premise. Additionally, the first premise is compatible with quantum mechanics insofar as the limitations imposed on QM are epistemic as opposed to ontological. Moving now to the second premise, which is supported by both philosophical and scientific examples. Scientifically, the beginning of the universe has overwhelming support in modern cosmological. Phenomena such as redshift, the cosmic background radiation, the expansion of the universe, and the second law of thermodynamics all point toward the idea that the universe began to exist over 14 billion years ago. More recently, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has demonstrated that any universe in a state of cosmic expansion must be finite in past duration. [2] Philosophically, if the universe were eternal in its past duration, then this implies the existence of an actual infinite. However, since it is impossible for an actually infinite set of things to exist, the universe must be finite in its past duration. An actual infinite is a set which has attained infinite status. Its existence is impossible because one yields contradictory answers when applying mathematical operations to it. If one has an infinite number of marbles and subtracts all the even numbered marbles, he is still left with an infinite number. However, if he subtracts all of the marbles except seven, then although he subtracted the same amount of marbles from the previous example, he is left with seven. There are a plethora of examples, and what this shows is that since one yields contradictory answers when applying mathematical operations to actual infinites, that they cannot exist. From this is follows that the universe has a cause. But why think this cause is God? Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.2. The Thomistic TAWhereas traditional teleological arguments are based on a mechanistic conception of nature, the TA offered here is based on the Fifth of Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways for demonstrating God's existence. The argument does not rely on notions of "irreducible complexity" nor is it similar to any Paley-style watchmaker design argument. Hence, objections against these TAs are not applicable to this version. The Thomistic TA thus goes as follows:1. If teleology exists, then an ordering intellect exists.2. Teleology exists.3. Therefore, an ordering intellect exists. The term teleology refers to an end, goal, or purpose to which something is directed toward. Thus, to say that something has a telos is just to say that it has a function. Teleology implies intentionality, and intentionality is a feature of minds. Hence, if teleology exists, then there must exist an ordering intellect in which something's end is grounded in. As Edward Feser illustrates:"Where goal-directness is associated with consciousness, as it is in us, there is no mystery. A builder builds a house, and he is able to do so because the form of the house exists in his intellect because it is instantiated in a concrete particular object. And of course, the materials that will take on that form also exist already, waiting to take it on. " [3]So does teleology exist? Obviously, for without it we cannot make sense of the world around us. Does a heart just happen to pump blood, or does it pump blood because that is its purpose? Does one's mind just happen to think rationally, or does it think rationally because that is its purpose? Evidently in both cases the latter is true. In fact, the latter example illustrates that it is self-refuting to deny that there is teleology. Our use of teleological explanations in everyday life presupposes its legitimacy. Indeed, the entire discipline of medicine depends on there being such thing as a function or purpose to parts of the human body. How else can we say that a diseased heart is not functioning properly if there is not a way which it ought to function? We cannot make sense of efficient causality without teleology. Moreover, as David Oderberg has argued, teleology is present not just in organic processes, but also in the inorganic. Processes such as the water cycle and the rock cycle are inherently teleological in nature. [4]All this implies that there must be an ordering intellect which grounds the teleology present in the universe. Because this being has a mind, it must be personal. Because this being is the ground of all teleology, there cannot be a higher being from which its teleology is derived. Therefore, it is appropiate to call this being God. [1] David S. Oderberg, ‘Traversal of the Infinite, the “Big Bang” and the Kalam Cosmological Argument’, Philosophia Christi 4 (2002): 305-36. [2] That being said, there are exception conditions to the BVG theorem. See: . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[3] Edward Feser, "Teleology: A Shopper's Guide," Philosophia Christi 12 (2010): 157 [4] David S. Oderberg, "Teleology: Inorganic and Organic," in A. M. González (ed. ), Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008): 259-79