It is reasonable to believe that God exists

Not only do I think it is reasonable, I think that is is probable - even certain that God exists. To attempt to prove this I will argue that the Ontological argument, following modal logic - along with two sub-arguments, means that it's actually more than reasonable to assert that God exists than not. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world 3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world 4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world 5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists 6) Therefore a maximally great being exists 7) Therefore God exists So if premise 1 is correct, then premises 2-7 follow logically and necessarily. So what reasons do we have to think that premise 1 is correct? I will present 2 arguments that, if correct, prove that it is possible that a maximally great being (i. e God) exists. COSMOLOGICAL 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2) The universe began to exist 3) Therefore the universe has a cause. This cause has to be: Timeless (As it brought time into existence), changeless, immaterial (As it brought space and matter into existence), personal and hugely powerful (By the mere fact that it brought the universe into existence) There are only two things that have all these properties - Abstract Objects (So numbers or Laws) or an Unembodied Mind or Conscience (So 'God'). And since Abstract Objects cannot cause anything, by deductive reasoning the cause of the Universe is an Unembodied Mind. PREMISE 1 What reasons do we have to believe Premise 1? Here are the main three reasons: - Something cannot come from nothing - the golden rule of Metaphysics. - If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why everything and anything comes into being from nothing. - Common experience and scientific evidence confirm premise 1. This is always verified and never falsified, and an appeal to inductive reasoning. PREMISE 2 What about Premise 2? Well, we know this for 2 reasons: - The Big Bang; this states that the universe cosmically expanded from a singularity a finite time ago, which is accepted by essentially all cosmologists today. - An actual Infinate cannot exist. In 2003, three leading cosmologists: Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. In other words, the universe began to exist. Additionally, Infinity does not exist because the very concept of it is an absurdity. To give an analogy - if i have an infinity number of coins, numbered 1,2,3 etc. up to infinity. If i took away all the even numbered coins, i would be left with all the odd numbered coins - so infinty. Infinity--infinity=infinity. Now if i took away all the coins numbered greater than five. I would then be left with 5 coins. So infinity--infinity=5. this is contradictory as if i take the same value away from infinity, it comes up with contradictory results. So the universe cannot be infinite in the past - but rather have a finite beginning. PREMISE 3 Premise 3 logically follows ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist 3. Therefore God exists PREMISE 1 If God does not exist, there is no transcendent source for moral values and duties. So if God does not exist, morals are subjective - no moral action is fundamentally better or worse than another. Similarly if God exists, morals are objective - God is the setter of morals, and moral actions are good or bad according to his standards. With objective moral values and duties, it would state that for example, helping a homeless man is better as a moral action than say, child abuse. PREMISE 2 How do we know morals are objective? Well, through personal experience. When we see an animal, we know that petting it would be morally better than attacking it. Equally, when we see a child, we know that talking in a friendly manner to it is morally better than assaulting it. I don't think that anybody who isn't a sociopath can deny that morals are objective. PREMISE 3 Therefore God exists So we have formulated some characteristics of this being - it is transcendent of time and space, is changeless, personal, hugely powerful and the source of moral authority. A Maximally Great Being has all of these qualities so I think that it is firmly established that not only is it possible, it is even probable that a Maximally Great Being exists and so the rest of my argument follows. My opponent now needs to refute my arguments to deny that to believe in God is reasonable.