A Personal First Cause/Necessary Being Exists

1)Whatever begins to or already exists has a cause/explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or an external explanation. 2) The Universe has an explanation/cause for its existence, and that is grounded in God (a necessary being). 3) The Universe exists. 4) Therefore the Universe has a cause/explanation to its existence. 5) The cause/explanation of the Universe can only be a necessary being. C) God exists. The 1st premise of this argument uses the same reasoning as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz"s Principle of Sufficient Reason which is considered to be an actual Law of Thought/Logic. http://plato.stanford.edu... If we deny that anything that has existed in the past, exists currently in the present or will in the future, do not require a cause/explanation for their existence; that would make conducting Scientific experiments using the Scientific Method impossible or very difficult to apply in the natural world since things could cause their own existence and not have a cause/reason/explanation for how they came to be. Predicting anything would be very difficult if not impossible to conduct which nullifies multiple forms of reasoning such as Deduction (the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion), Induction (reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion) and Abduction (a form of logical inference that goes from an observation to a hypothesis that accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation). http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given and similar can be said for abduction. Aren"t the logical conclusions you form about anything are backed by sufficient reason? Premise 2 : Many Atheists agree with Theists is that the Universe does indeed exist necessarily because it is the foundation for matter, space, time, energy, this planet which we live that is able to support life, the fact that the stream of consciousness exists etc. Without the Universe, none of these things (because they"re all inside of it) would be able to work in the way they all do today, yesterday and tomorrow. If the Universe was necessary in itself, it would have to be eternal (never failing to exist and always was) and changeless (never changes, correlates with eternal). This would also mean it has no cause, but as everything else must have an explanation for its existence and proving the Universe is eternal is the first step in doing so. The philosophical idea of Hard Determinism would also follow this as well because if nothing in the Universe can change, everything would have to be the same forever. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... But if the Universe was changeless and eternal, why is it undergoing this Redshift (the widening of the Universe at some velocity that"s supposed to be greater than light) that Edwin Hubble "discovered" that cosmologists say "the Universe is infinitely inflating" (Cosmic Inflation) ? There seems nothing illogical about theorizing about some parts of the Universe being different instead of claiming everything was the same (especially since the 8 planets of our solar system & the various celestial bodies are apart of the Universe. Why I do not believe this to be the case is because of theorems like the Kochen-Specker Theorem which states that the outcome obtained depends on the setting/environment at the time of the experiment/action and can"t be predicted prior (unless it was preordained). http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology) http://en.wikipedia.org... Also the Borde-Guth-Vilekin Theorem of 2003 explained that the Universe which is believed to be expanding cannot be past eternal (which is the implication since there had to have been a moment in the finite past where the Universe to have been formed for it to be expanding or been experiencing a stage where that was not happening). Then questions like "why is Earth the only planet known to man the one that can support and has life (assuming this is the case)?" are asked (this brings up the topic of Fine-Tuning). Someone might try to combat the idea of a necessary being with propositions such as the Multiverse Theory. I do not believe the Multiverse Theory especially since it looks to be a theory crafted that can be neither proven nor disproven in hopes to save the Big Bang Theorem. What I mean is this, it cannot be proven to have been seen because of the fact that our Universe has been going through Cosmic Inflation since it"s beginning and to expand at a velocity greater than Light itself. The issue with this is, even with the best equipment possible, we could never potentially view outside our Universe if it expands faster than light can travel, and telescopes would have to be ridiculously good enough to view trillions upon trillions of miles just to see "the next Universe" or outside our own, this is a never ending problem thus cannot be proven nor disproven unless we can escape this Universe which atm, is impossible. This is called the Horizon Problem. Also check out the Flatness Problem. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... So people then might try to make the argument that the Universe doesn't need to have been created by a necessary being (God) but a necessary substance instead, since they might think the necessary substance sounds like it could avoid the problem of infinite regression (which can be caused by Event Causation). But to be able to do something, as mentioned before the substance would have to be conscious, have the ability to do something by itself, because something without a mind or being alive for that matter, it cannot act on its own or be able to create something contingent (Agent Causation) and it would not be made up of anything in the Universe so it would most likely be immaterial, intelligent enough to know how to craft/formulate things, the power to act accordingly and independent of space, time, the cycle of life, energy, hyper-dimensional (more than 3 dimensional since our Universe is 3 dimensional, it lesser than anything it creates/causes), the laws of physics that apply to this Universe etc. But this just sounds like a Necessary Being anyways because a substance cannot do these things without influence from something that matches all these characteristics. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... Premise 3 : Is a statement of fact, if you're one of those guys who suggests Solipsism, the Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis or whatever illusionary type idea, I can address any of those if you want to include that (if you were to object to premise 3 which people have actually done before) . It would be a case of special pleading to say the Universe caused itself. The people that argue that particles come into existence from nothing via Quantum Fluctuation have simply misunderstood Science, the entire Universe is filled with energy contained in a vacuum (not as much as before though since the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy explain that the Universe is constantly moving to a phase called Thermodynamic Equilibrium where there"ll be no more usable energy for us and we"ll all cease to exist due to there not being any usable energy required for us to live). http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Particles probably come from the energy that is in the Universe, and I"m sure anyone who knows that Energy = Mass X (3x10^8 aka Speed of Light)^2 (which I would assume is true regarding examples such as the way an atomic bomb works) can understand that this energy conversion is more logical and possible than something that violates logic itself (i.e Something From Nothing. For an event to occur, there must be a conscious being present that has the capability to do something by itself (Agent Causation). If you or anyone were to make the argument like using wind moving a ball for example, this would not work because Wind is a collection of gases that moves from areas of high concentration to lower, and last time I checked, things cannot move by themselves without some form of consciousness, which even though this is off topic, I believe molecules could very well be conscious beings, alive, idk about that. And the ball (a sphere like object/body) was probably crafted by someone/thing, things do not create themselves without existing prior to self-creation but that argument is nonsensical making it invalid (that would mean if a dog for example named Sakajuiah wanted to cause it"s own existence somehow can just from wanting to). So nothing brought forth life, all material things that have existed in the past, exist now & will in the future, the laws of physics, space, time, energy etc. by colliding with nothing is the biggest leap of faith I"ve ever heard of . So if this Universe which I believe to be all there is, and caused by something, that something would be the 1st cause to cause anything else to exist. Premise 4 : I did my best to explain. Premise 5 : Explained through 2. Conclusion : This is my current scientific/philosophical argument for God.