God Exists

When I refer to God, I am referring to a being who possesses "the greatest possible array of compossible great making properties." [1] I will be presenting several arguments (I'll start off with one in my OP) that argue in favor of the existence of such a being. It is up to my opponent to refute these arguments, and then erect a case of his own against me. [2] Argument 1: The Kalam Cosmological Argument 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause The first premise is relatively uncontroversial, and is rooted in the metaphysical principle that out of nothing, nothing comes. By definition, nothing has no potentialities. Thus, it is impossible for something to arise out of nothing, for how can its existence be actualized if the potential is not there to begin with? The truth of the causal premise is additionally supported by our everyday experience. If the causal premise were false, then it is quite odd as to why we don't observe things coming into existence uncaused and out of nothing in our everyday experience. Presumably, nobody lives their life worrying about the possibility of an elephant suddenly appearing out of nothing in their living room. The second premise is confirmed by both modern science and by various philosophical arguments. According to standard big bang cosmology, the universe began to exist ex nihil in an infinitely dense singularity more than 14 billion years ago. This singularity served as the boundary to the space-time manifold, and hence the universe began to exist ex nihilo in the sense that there was no moment prior to the singularity. Scientific verification for the second premise also comes from the second law of thermodynamics, one of the most verified laws in science. According to the second law, the entropy of a closed system tends to increase over time. In other words, the amount of energy required to do work constantly decreases as closed systems tend toward equilibrium. If one drops a small amount of food coloring into a cup of water, for example, the food coloring will diffuse evenly throughout the water. Applied to the universe, the second law implies that it will eventually attain maximum entropy. This is known as the heat death of the universe. At that point, there will be no energy available to do work, and the universe will be locked in a state of changelessness. If the universe were eternal, however, then it should have already attained maximum entropy. But, since it has not yet attained maximum entropy, then it follows that the universe must be finite in its past duration. Picture a toy that has been wound up. If an infinite amount of time had passed, then the toy should have wound down. The fact that it is still running indicates that it was wound up a finite time ago. On the basis of the second law of thermodynamics, we may also conclude that the universe began to exist. Approaching the second premise from a philosophical perspective, the universe must have begun to exist because if it were eternal, then its past duration would be actually infinite. However, since actual infinities are impossible, it follows that the past duration of the universe must be finite. Because this argument is complex, I will leave this out of my OP (I will introduce it to later posts if I deem it necessary). But what must this cause be? Why should we call it God? Couldn't it have been something else? In analyzing this, we must first note that since there is nothing "prior" to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Because of this, it follows that the cause must be uncaused and personal (Personal in order to create in the lack of antecedent determining conditions). It must also transcend both matter and time in order to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. "And this," in the words of Thomas Aquinas, "all men call God." Suppose my opponent responds by asking "Who made God?" This is nothing but a stock reply that has no effect on the cogency of my argument. It misconstrues the very argument. The theist does not believe that everything has a cause, only that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" (The first premise). Since God did not begin to exist, it follows that God therefore does not need a cause. But more importantly, it follows analytically from the very concept of God that he does not need a cause. For remember that the definition of God that I gave in the beginning is "a being who possesses the greatest possible array of compossible great making properties." Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that there is nothing that is greater than him (For THAT would be God). This entails that since that there is nothing greater than him, there exists no being that can cause him to exist. Hence, the very concept of God precludes his being caused. The "Who made God" objection is thus simply a naive and simplistic stock parry that is not given serious attention in academic circles. _________ SOURCES [1] - Thomas V. Morris, "Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology" (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 1991) 35. [2] - Sections of my argument are modified from my essay "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" -- http://scaeministries.org...