Since I have mentioned some of these arguments elsewhere in the past several days, I am going to consolidate them into a single 20,000 character post, assuming I don't run out of space. I think I'm required to post a photo here, so I'll post a photo of the fictional Blizzard Entertainment Archangel, Tyrael.
So anyway, I'll start with a Moral argument, since I like proving Objective Morality and Objective Truth exist.
In Science (Physics), we have the all-important Copernican Principle, which states, "The Laws of the Universe are the same for all of space and time."
And we have the first postulate of Einstein's Relativity Theory, which states, "The Laws of the Universe are the same for every inertial reference frame," which is technically a Metaphysical claim, not just a Physical claim, since Reference Frames are not physical constructions, they are Metaphysical constructions.
Now if Objective Morality and Objective Truth did not exist, then the Copernican Principle and the Theory of Relativity would fail, and all Science and all other forms of Reason would be illusory. However, we know from experiment that Science and Reason are NOT illusory, therefore the Copernican Principle is true, and the Theory of Relativity is True, with a few details still needing to be resolved presently, but true enough. Therefore, Objective Morality and Objective Truth actually exist in Reality: both Physical Reality and Metaphysical Reality.
Now since the Universe is Objectively Truthful and Objectively Moral, it leaves a few new questions: Is the Universe past eternal, as Einstein once thought? What about Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal?
Well, recently, Guthe et al proved in a Scientific Paper by Mathematics that no space-time continuum, not even the Multiverse, can ever be "Past-infinite" nor "self-eternal". They even proved this would be the case even without the Big Bang, and even without Entropy, and even without Cosmic Inflation. Therefore the concept of a past-infinite Universe is proven Objectively Wrong, and it is quite rare that you can actually prove a Scientific Hypothesis Objectively Wrong. I am not trying to smear Hawking's name, but as far as I can tell, all of his theories and hypothesis for which he won the Nobel Prize have since been over-turned and disproven, which would actually make three cases I know of for Nobel Prizes being totally over-turned after the fact.
Stephen Hawking did not believe in Free Moral Agency or "Free Will". He believed in Naturalism Only, and believed only in Determinism. He believed Free Will was an illusion, but also believed that a criminal was still guilty of a crime they committed, even though he admitted that in naturalism/determinism only they would have no way of actually being objectively responsible for their actions.
I will here argue that Free Moral Agency is actually NOT an Illusion. Hawking simply unnecessarily excluded the broader scope of Philosophical reality known as "Metaphysics". First of all, everybody intuitively thinks and acts as though Free Moral Agency were actually real. And Metaphysics allows Free moral Agency to over-ride the Laws of Physics without actually violating any Laws of Logic. It is only at some middle level scientific dilemma that anybody questions this.
For example, the Apostle Paul in Christianity struggled with the problem, "If God is Almighty, how can Free Will exist for humans?" Paul did not believe in Free Will among humans, because He couldn't resolve how God could be Almighty and at the same time give true Free Will to his creation. So, He believed the (Objectively Immoral) position that everybody was created either Good or Evil from conception, and rewarded or punished according to what God had already created them to be. This doctrine, if you read the Old Testament, is actually refuted by the Book of Ezekiel in the Old Testament of the Bible. In fact about a third of the Book of Ezekiel is spent rebuking this position as a basic foundation for what Ezekiel was about to say regarding Israel's spiritual/moral condition. Regardless of the Book of Ezekiel, it would be Objectively Immoral for God to punish someone who was Created "Inherently Evil," because their crimes are not their own fault.
Free Moral Agents are theoretically, at the Metaphysical level, not subject to any laws outside themselves, except possibly a higher Free Moral Agent (God). Now God himself MUST be a Free Moral Agent in order to actually be God, as the Greatest Conceivable Being is actually one and the same as the Greatest Conceivable Free Moral Agent. The GCB is not an mere "apparently" Free Moral Agent. The GCB is an actual Free Moral Agent, as an Actual Free Moral Agent is greater than an "apparently" Free Moral Agent.
Now if the only thing that existed in reality was a Grain of Sand, or a planet, or a Star, that would actually be the GCB. However, we know higher things that than exist. We know by Intuition that "Apparently Free Moral Agents," such as ourselves, do exist in reality, so right away the GCB is AT LEAST an Apparently Free Moral Agent; but the Greatest Conceivable Being that I can think of is an actual Free Moral Agent. So the Greatest Conceivable Free Moral Agent that actually exists in reality is, by definition, "Almighty God". I hope the reader can see why a Free Moral Agent is inherently a greater Being than a being which is not a Free Moral Agent.
Now since I just showed a few paragraphs ago that the Universe is an Objectively Truthful and Objectively Moral construction, and showed that the Universe cannot be "past-eternal", one must ask some questions here: Where did the Universe actually come from? Why is the Universe Objectively Truthful and Objectively Moral?
The answer to the first question is that the Universe must have been Created by a pre-existing reality, which by the way could NOT be another space-time continuum (Guthe et al). In other words, the existence of the Multiverse in String Theory does not actually explain the existence of the Universe. "The Multiverse described by String Theory is so perfect that it could only come into being if it was in fact Created by a pre-existing Intelligence." (Dr. Michio Kaku, ~2017).
The answer to the second question posed is this: Whoever (or whatever) Created the Universe must be Objectively Truthful and Objectively Moral, and since we have from Dr. Kaku's answer in the previous question that the Multiverse must have been created by a pre-existing intelligence, that means a Free Moral Agent, which is Objectively Truthful and Objectively Moral, actually created the entire Multiverse from nothing except the power of his very own Divine Nature. In other words, The Almighty Creator God absolutely NECESSARILY exists in order to be able to explain the origins of String Theory.
Next, I will post the Ontological Argument directly, which is similar to some of the facts I have already presented:
1) By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2) A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3) Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5) Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6) God exists in the mind as an idea.
7) Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality
And I think Aquinas might go a step further, and argue that God is actually the ONLY entity that is in fact fundamentally real. Everything else, including ourselves, I think he would argue, would be considered a "secondary reality".
So technically God does not exist "In" reality. Technically God IS "THE Fundamental Reality".
Aquinas would argue that God is in fact "The First Cause".
As a Deist, I would argue that it might not be possible to tell the difference in whether or not God is the actual First Cause. The other day, I argued that God might actually be born from a condition of Classical Chaos, in which case Classical Chaos would be the First Cause, but since reality is no longer in the condition of Classical Chaos, that might have no functional bearing on our moral or rational situation; The Almighty God of Order could cause Classical Chaos to cease to exist.
Either way, it's pretty clear that we do not presently reside in a reality of Classical Chaos. The Greeks too invoked Classical Chaos as the explanation of the Origin of God Himself, but we still do not know a lot about the concept of Classical Chaos, most of modern physics and philosophy and religion goes about ignoring the possibility of Classical Chaos having existed in the past at some point, because we don't know a way to study Classical Chaos in much detail. Please note that Classical Chaos is NOT the same thing as Entropy. Entropy actually follows a predictable Mathematical law at all times. Classical Chaos does not follow a predictable law, EXCEPT that Classical Chaos theoretically eventually breaks down and gives rise to a "God of Order"....and then once a God of Order exits, Classical Chaos ceases to exist.
So you don't really need to know all of this, because Chaos is not a Moral construction, but since some people will ask the question, "Where did God come from?" I have offered a possible explanation, which is "God was Created by Classical Chaos, "BEFORE" the concept of Time, Truth, or Morality even existed."
I pointed out that if God were actually past-eternal, there would be no answer to the question, "What was God's first creation?" And the mere asking of that question would be a logical paradox, therefore it seems unlikely to me that the Almighty God is literally Past-Infinite. The Bible claims that God is in fact Past-Infinite, "From Everlasting to Everlasting," but I have never been able to actually prove that, because it always leads to a logical paradox as far as I can tell, and again, the only way I have come up with to resolve these paradoxes is by suggesting that God was himself Created by Classical Chaos.
I'm only slightly more than half-way through 20,000 characters, but I don't want to risk the power flashing off and me losing my work, so I'll post it now.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
there is a dome above the earth there is no debate
GOD exist
atheist believe in imaginary things
Share the first opinion in your gender
and earn 1 more Xper point!