Resolved: God exists

Statement 1) Something cannot be A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship (the law of non-contradiction). Statement 2) Ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing nothing comes). Statement 3) There is something. Alright, so with those basic preconditions set, let's launch into my argument for the existence of God. MAIN ARGUMENT Point 1) The Impossibility to the Contrary Going from statement 3 above we can conclude that there is indeed something that exists. Therefore, by definition, there is not nothing. Now, since something can't come out of nothing, we have to ask the question, where did the universe come from? I hold that God cannot not exist because otherwise the universe would not exist. He is an impossibility to the contrary. Obviously, people will disagree, so let's go back to the beginning of the world. What started the ball rolling, so to speak? What caused the world to exist? There are a couple option available to us. A) Chance, B) Time, and C) a timeless, spaceless, immaterial entity. Option A) is probably what we hear most of the time but actually has a gaping hole. Chance can't create anything. Chance is a word we assign to the mathematical probability that something will or will not take place. If I toss a coin up in the air, there is a 50/50 chance it will land heads up. However, if I were able to use a machine that always started the coin heads up, and always applied the same amount of pressure, and always made the coin spin a certain number of times, we would be able to increase that probability it would land heads up. But, did chance do that? Absolutely not! Chance is an idea, not an entity capable of doing anything including starting the world. Option B) is arguably the second most popular explanation for the existence of something instead of nothing, but sadly it carries even less intellectual weight. For example, if I went to a party with an atheist, and 45 minutes after we arrived we found a trout in the punchbowl, what would we conclude? Well, we would both conclude that someone put it there. We would reject the idea that time caused it to exist. Regardless of whether we give the ice cubes 45 minutes to bump together, or 45 billion years to do so they will still be ice cubes and a trout will still be absent from said punchbowl. Time doesn't create something new. Time doesn't create anything, in fact. As Douglas Wilson said, "If I want to walk across my pool, inching out slowly isn't going to help. " Time is clearly not an intellectually defensible option. Option C) actually has two sub-options, one which is defended by atheists on occasion, and one by theists. The Atheistic one is that there was some matter that is self-existent and created everything else. Now, ignoring the fact that everything we know about matter tells us it is dependent and will erode (the second law of Thermodynamics), let's assume we found this matter. This matter would be that which created everything. Now, the creator (be it matter or God) is always superior than the creation. It has to be by definition. This matter would also have to be timeless, since it created everything else, including time. Therefore, this matter would be self-existent, timeless, spaceless (since it would create space to), and superior to the creation. This is starting to sound a little bit like God. So, why God and not the matter? The reason is that God is the only thing that provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. Let me explain. Point 2) Necessary Preconditions for Intelligibility Everyday we live we operate as if there are objectives in the world. In fact, this debate round shows that. First, my opponent accepts the debate, thereby showing that he believes there is truth to be known (showing his rejection of relative truth and his acceptance of objective truth). He believes that the debate is not futile and that we can say that it is objectively true that God doesn't exist. While he may not be able to say he knows as a fact, he certainly believes that there is an objective truth here. Which begs the question, what is our standard for this objective truth? Second, he expects me to be logical, and I expect him to do the same. Now, we both accept that there is that which is logical and that which is not. By statement 1 provided above (the law of non-contradiction) we show our belief in objectives when it comes to logic. Even if my opponent denies that, he will be sure to accuse me of circular reasoning if I then say "God exists because he does! " But then he must answer the question of, "if logic isn't objective, but is subjective, then why do I care if you say I'm engaging in circular reasoning? That's just your opinion. " If we deny the objectivity of logic, this debate is futile. However, with logic being objective, it to begs the question of what is our objective standard for logic? And finally, morality. Both me and my opponent expect the other to be civil. We want a fair, and kind discussion on both sides. Now, if my opponent denies this, then if I say something incredibly rude, he can't tell me that it's wrong! It's just his opinion! Why should I listen to his subjective opinion? Why should I listen to anyone's? See, we operate each day like there are objectives. Impersonal matter cannot account for that anymore than a tree can be our objective standard for logic, morality, and truth. Matter can't be a standard because it's just matter. Matter cannot be our objective standard. Only God can supply the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, namely objective standards of logic, morality, and truth. This statement is proven analytically true. So, in order for my opponent to critique my worldview, he has to have an objective standard for logic. Lewis said "How can a man call a line crooked if he doesn't have an idea of a straight one? " His accusation that God is a myth implies a standard of logic, one that can only be provided in a worldview in which God exists. Therefore, God is an impossibility to the contrary for two reasons: because he is the only valid explanation for the existence of something, instead of nothing, and second because he is the only one who can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. Meaning that in order for my opponent to critique the existence of God, he has to appeal to him. Thank you, and I look forward to a fascinating and edifying debate.