Resolved: God Exists

Cosmological ArgumentContingenciesCon continues to misunderstand the argument. What he seems to think I am saying is:'If X is contingent, then it is contingent on Y, where Y is non-contingent'I do not say this, because it is evidently untrue. Instead I say that if we have a set of every single contingent entity, then this set must be contingent on a non-contingent entity. This is because if it was contingent on another contingent entity, then this would contradict the definition of the set. The fact remains that we can theoretically group all contingent entities (by considering the universe), and then conclude that the universe must be contingent on a non-contingent being (if we accept that all contingent entities are within the universe). This is because something can only be contingent on something external, otherwise it is self-causing (an absurdity). So, all the cosmological argument does is prove that a non-contingent being exists. This being can quite readily be called 'God', as I will explain below. PropertiesA transcendent being is one that is outside space and time - and a being that is outside the universe fits this description. Furthermore, if the universe is contingent on a non-contingent being, then the most likely reason why it is contingent on this being is that it was created by it. Ergo, the non-contingent being = the transcendent creator of the universe. OmniscienceI don't say that 'God is beyond human logic', I just recognise that there are fundamental differences between finite human intellect and an omniscient intellect. The reason why humans are rarely certain of contingent happenings is that contingent things change - they are likely different now than they were in the past and will be in the future. As humans can only experience the present, we are naturally uncertain of that which we cannot experience (i. e changes in the future and previous changes in the past). In contrast, the cosmological argument concludes that God is transcendent (outside time and space). 'Outside time' being the operative phrase. If God is outside time then he can know about all points in time with equal clarity, so the fact that contingency causes changes does not affect God's certainty, unlike how it affects human certainty. Therefore, God can be certain of all things in spite of contingency. Ontological ArgumentOntological Non-existence? Con claims that I assume that existence is the 'default state'. Yet I say nothing of the sort. What I did say was that possible existence is the default. This is because impossible existence entails a particular essential feature that causes it to be impossible. For example, there is an essential incoherency in a 'square circle' that renders it impossible. If there is no essential incoherency then something is possible. Nonetheless, Con actually goes on to support the claim that there is an essential incoherency to God. I will refute his claims below. Logical IncoherenciesOmnipotenceHere, my opponent cites the paradox of the stone. This dilemma poses 2 options:1. God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift2. God can create a stone that he cannot liftI would propose that the first is correct, but God not being able to create the stone does not render him non-omnipotent. Consider the nature of a stone that an omnipotent being could not lift. It is a logical impossibility in a similar way to a 'square circle'. The definition of omnipotence entails that anything can be lifted by an omnipotent being, so something that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being is a logical contradiction. Now, consider the definition of 'omnipotent':'able to perform any action'This does not imply that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible, because logically impossible feats are not really 'actions'. For example, creating a square circle is not really an action, because it is incoherent, and hence no such action exists. Therefore, as creating a stone that God cannot lift is a logical contradiction, it does not qualify as an action, hence God being omnipotent does not require that he be able create a stone that he could not lift. OmniscienceI have already justified that an omniscient being could be certain of contingencies without raising a contradiction. Pre-CreationCon states that I assume that God does not have a source. Yet this is not an assumption. In the cosmological argument I cogently concluded that the existence of contingent entities necessitates a non-contingent source. This is likely to be God. A non-contingent source is not contingent on anything, hence it does not require a source. Therefore, God is not a metaphysical impossibility. Ergo, He is possible. Positivity of Existence & GreatnessI will attempt to reiterate why existence is a positive quality for God. We have two options, as presented in C1 of the ontological argument:A) God exists as an idea in the mindB) God exists both as an idea in the mind, and in actual reality. The only difference between A and B is that the latter ascribes a second property to God, which is that he exists in actual reality. Now consider that God is, by definition, a 'good' being because he has multiple 'good' qualities such as omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. In other words, God is good because he has these qualities. But in scenario A, God cannot actualise the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience or benevolence (even if they are possessed conceptually), so God is not good in that scenario. In scenario B, God can actualise these qualities, so God is good in that scenario. Therefore, the God in B is better than the God in A. Therefore, existence in actual reality is a positive quality. Con postulates that there is no objective 'good'. Yet this contradicts our intuition, which recognises that concepts such as knowledge, power and love are intrinsically good. Their goodness is within their own essence. Moral nihilism would say that knowledge, power and love are not good, but this is absurd and runs contrary to what we intuitively know to be correct. My opponent presents a parody of the argument, using Narnia as its subject. But the argument fails because Narnia simply isn't the greatest place conceivable. Nor is any other place, because what makes a place 'great' is subjective, and one could always conceive of a better place than that which they previously conceived of (for example, conceiving of just one more beautiful tree). There is no 'intrinsic maximum' to places, yet there is an intrinsic maximum to beings - as there is a definite point at which nothing greater can be conceived, namely an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent being. Places have no definite point at which nothing greater can be conceived. Subjective ExistenceHere, Con says:'God being in the mind as an idea is rational in comparison to God existing physically'Which is where he concedes that God could exist in the mind as an idea, which is the very premise he attacked in round 2. Con again presents a parody argument, but this argument does not even make grammatical sense so I can hardly be expected to refute it. Take the following sentences:'Positivity is epistemological being ''Epistemological being can be objective existence. 'These firstly do not sound like they are making sense, and secondly, it is not defined as to what 'epistemological being' actually is. Nor is it an actual philosophical term that I can look up. To conclude, I have sufficiently defended the ontological argument. Naturalistic Origin of the UniverseCon's entire argument rests upon the baseless assumption that the universe has zero-energy. Furthermore, the zero energy hypothesis raises problems:1. The hypothesis postulates that gravitational energy is negative. Yet this is incorrect, as all energy is a scalar quantity (1), so negative energy cannot exist.2. It is a huge assumption that matter-energy is exactly equal to gravitational energy. Such an assumption is not sound science. Furthermore, Con insists that gravity did exist before the Big Bang, but he only cites a paper that I cannot look at, so for all I know it does not actually support his claims. I am especially sceptical since the last source Con used to support this claim turned out to say nothing of the sort. Next, Con raises the common objection: who created God? But he forgets that my cosmological argument concludes that God is non-contingent, which entails that He does not require a creator. Mass-energy equivalenceI agree that mass can arise from energy, but the initial energy is, as of yet, unexplained naturalistically. Time UncertaintyThis argument fails because it asserts that there was a quantum fluctuation that occurred before the universe (time and space), whilst forgetting that quantum fluctuations can only happen within space (i. e within the universe). ParsimonyThis application of Occams Razor depends on the premise that the evidence for and against God are equal, yet I have given ample evidence that shows that there is more evidence for God than against God. Religious experienceCon's rebuttal of this argument rests upon the presumption that God is logically incoherent, which is a proposition I have already refuted. Therefore, the argument stands. Furthermore, the actual argument is not mathematical, it just uses mathematics to symbolically express its veracity. The argument itself is not mathematical and instead draws evidence from the real world (peoples' experiences). ConclusionI would like to thank Con for a brilliant and intellectually stimulating debate, although I maintain that my arguments for God were stronger than his arguments against God. As per the rules, I will not argue in round 5, but I would request that my opponent refrains from posting new arguments in round 5, and instead sticks to addressing my arguments. (1) . https://www.physicsforums.com...