It is Probable That God Exists

I will use two logically airtight arguments supported by two of the leading Christian apologists/theologians alive today: The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as supported by William Lane Craig, and the Ontological Argument, as supported by Alvin Plantinga. Kalam Cosmological ArgumentThe Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.2. The universe had a beginning.3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. [1]Premise 1 -- Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This premise is actually uncontroversial in academic circles. There is a First Principle, that is, a principle that is self-evident and are the foundation of knowledge. Without them nothing could be known. This principle is the Principle of Causality, which states that every effect needs a cause. As such, something cannot come from nothing. Nonbeing cannot produce being. Premise 2 -- The universe had a beginning. The Second Law of Thermodynamics affirms that the universe is running out of usable energy and, hence, cannot be eternal. We also see that the universe is expanding, and at an accelerated rate. [1] As we see the universe is expanding more and more rapidly, and the universe is running out of usable energy, the universe will inevitably run out of usable energy and result in a "heat death. " As the universe is expanding and not static, we can see that the universe, indeed, had a beginning as it is not eternal. We can also approach this from a philosophical viewpoint:1) If an infinite number of moments occurred before today, then today would never have come, wince it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments.2) But today has come.3) Hence, there was a finite number of moments before today; the universe had a beginning. [2]Conclusion -- Therefore, the universe had a cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument argues from the Cosmos to a Creator. It is an argument that uses deductive reasoning to show that since all the parts within the universe require a case, so the universe, which is made up of all the individual parts, requires a cause. Take all the individual parts away and the universe ceases to exst. The universe must require a Creator because something cannot come from nothing on its own. Nothing is literally nothing -- it doesn't even exist. It doesn't have the power to do anything, or create anything because it literally is not there. Anything that begins to exist needs a cause, and this cause must come from outside itself. The Ontological ArgumentThe Ontological Argument for God's existence goes like this:1. It is possible that God (a Maximally-Great Being) exists.2. If it is possible that God (MGB) exists, then God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds.3. If God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds.4. If God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in the actual world.5. If God (MGB) exists in the actual world, then God (MGB) exists. [3]This argument follows modal logic. It is logically airtight. All that is needed to support is premise one. If premise one is supported, then the argument is irrefutable. Premise 1 -- It is possible that God exists. It is important to note that when a philosopher refers to a possible world, they are talking about a "hypothetical situation," a world in which something may be possible, although it doesn't actually exist. The world we live in now is the actual world. Unicorns exist in some possible worlds because the concept of a horse with a horn is not logically incoherent. But unicorns do not exist in the actual world. The number two exists in all possible worlds, and therefore in the actual world. It is important to note that the OA does not "imagine" God into existence. Ontologically, a being can be described in one of three ways: Impossible entities exist in no possible worlds, like a square circles. Contingent entities exist in some possible worlds, like unicorns. Necessary entities exist in all possible worlds, like the number two. No one created the number two, it just exists necessarily. It can't not exist. So God, if he exists, is a Maximally Great Being, so must exist in all possible worlds. He is a necessary entity. A Maximally Great Being is defined as a being that possesses all qualities that are better to have, which are defined as great making properties (such as love, wisdom, and power). He would have them to their maximal extent. He would also possess no qualities that are bad to have, like imperfection and corruption. These are defined as lesser-making qualities. Therefore, God has necessity, which is better to have than not to have. As such, premise one is supported and as such, the Ontological Argument stands as proof of God's existence. I look forward to Con's rebuttal. [1] Geisler, Norman L. , The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 399. [2] ibid. [3] Plantinga, Alvin (1998). Sennett. ed. The analytic theist: an Alvin Plantinga reader. Wm. B. Eerdmans, pp. 65-71.