a simple argument pro God's existence

Thanks Pro. Since Pro has not given a clear definition of God, I will provide one which I believe she’ll be happy with. God: The Sentient Being that caused our Universe. Pro’s argument Pro’s main argument is from the second law of thermodynamics, which states entropy tends to increase in an isolated system. I will grant that this shows the universe is finite, however I will show why this doesn’t mean the universe ontologically began which simultaneously provides an argument against the existence of God. Essentially, in order for the universe to begin, it must at one time not have existed. At a certain point in time must be the first time it exists. This is obvious. Christian Philosopher, William Lane Craig gives a really good explanation on what it means to begin to exist [1] e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. Simply being finite is not enough. Different theories of time can accept a finite universe, but reject an ontologically beginning of the universe. They propose the past and future exist. Under this view, the universe could not have began, as T isn’t the first time it exists and it didn’t at one time not exist. It would only have begun in the sense inch one begins on a ruler or New York begins at its border. They don’t ontologically begin there, as they exist in other places. I argue these theories of time are better than ones that propose only one or two states of time exist. We can prove this by thinking about the nature of truth. If there is a dog in the yard, what makes that true? It’s true because there is a state of affairs in the physical world where there is a dog in the yard. Truth must describe the real world accurately. What if the dog comes in the house? Then it would be presently true that the dog was once in the yard. However, what would make this true? This presently true statement must be true because there at one time in our world was a dog in the yard. If the past can affect a present truth, then it must still exist to give it its truthmaker. Otherwise there would be nothing that makes that true There are also true statements about the future. The law of excluded middle says the dog will either stay in the house for the rest of its life or not. One must happen. However, this means there are true statements about the future and thus the future must exist too in order to give it its truthmaker. Inductively, these theories of time have been confirmed. Particles can be entangled through time [2]. The present can affect the past and the past can be affected by the future, they must all exist. Time dilation has also been confirmed [3][4]. Clocks moving relative to the Earth slow down relative to our clocks. It is clear the past, present and future all exist. This means the universe couldn’t have ontologically began and thus, there can be no cause. Furthermore, even if I assume the universe began, Pro has given us no reason to assume God is the cause. Pro even admits there can be other causes. Since a naturalistic cause would be simpler, it should be favored as the most parsimonious explanation. Why not a cause via simultaneous causation? For example, atoms A, B and C come into existence at the same time. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A all at the same time. There is a causal explanation for all of them, yet the cause is completely internal. The resolution is negated. Back to Pro. [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [4] http://www.phy.olemiss.edu...