An argument for God's existence

[IWantGod]

Premise 1: God exists

Premise 2: God exists

Premise 3: God exists

Conclusion: Therefore God exists

 

[IWantGod]

Premise 1. A thing either has the reason for its existence in its own nature or in the nature of another being.

Premise 2. If a being exists because of its nature, then it is in its nature to exist and cannot cease to be its nature and at the same time still exist because its nature is necessary to its existence.

premise 3. If a being exists because of the existence of another nature, it cannot exist unless it is caused to exist be a being that has the reason for its own existence in its own nature.

Premise 4. Out of nothing comes nothing, and therefore a beings nature is either necessarily real or contingently real.

Premise 5. If a being is necessarily real then its nature cannot change according to premise 2.

**Premise 6. **The universe changes, and therefore the natures of which it is comprised are not necessarily real according to premise 2

Premise 7. The universe is contingently real according to premise 4, 3, 1 and therefore its existence requires a cause according to premise 3.

Premise 8. An eternal unchanging cause must exist according to the above premises in-order to explain the existence of beings that change.

premise 9. Natural causes can only exist in a universe that changes.

Premise 10. The only other kind of cause is an intelligent cause.

Conclusion: An eternal unchanging intelligent being caused the universe to exist.

 

[STT]

Premise 1. A thing either has the reason for its existence in its own nature or in the nature of another being.

This is similar to cosmological argument.

Premise 2. If a being exists because of its nature, then it is in its nature to exist and cannot cease to be its nature and at the same time still exist because its nature is necessary to its existence.

I have no idea what is this about.

premise 3. If a being exists because of the existence of another nature, it cannot exist unless it is caused to exist be a being that has the reason for its own existence in its own nature.

That I agree.

Premise 4. Out of nothing comes nothing, and therefore a beings nature is either necessarily real or contingently real.

That is not true. You can have something out of nothing if something has a set of properties which they cancel each other when something comes to be. For example, the positive initial energy for particles in Big Bang is canceled by negative gravitational energy.

Premise 5. If a being is necessarily real then its nature cannot change according to premise 2.

I don’t understand how?

Premise 6. The universe changes, and therefore the natures of which it is comprised are not necessarily real according to premise 2

Change has nothing to do with nature.

Premise 7. The universe is contingently real according to premise 4, 3, 1 and therefore its existence requires a cause according to premise 3.

That is not true. Something can comes out of nothing so universe is not necessary contingent.

Premise 8. An eternal unchanging cause must exist according to the above premises in-order to explain the existence of beings that change.

You need to justify your previous premises.

premise 9. Natural causes can only exist in a universe that changes.

Where do you want to go with this?

Premise 10. The only other kind of cause is an intelligent cause.

What is intelligent cause?

Conclusion: An eternal unchanging intelligent being caused the universe to exist.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

[IWantGod]

I have no idea what is this about.

If a thing exists because of its nature, then its nature is to exist. It exists necessarily as such.

 

[STT]

If a thing exists because of its nature, then its nature is to exist. It exists necessarily as such.

I see. What about the rest of my comments?

 

[IWantGod]

I see. What about the rest of my comments?

And so it follows that it cannot cease to be its nature and still exist because its nature is the reason why its exists. Its nature is necessary to its existence. It cannot change.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is not true. You can have something out of nothing if something has a set of properties which they cancel each other when something comes to be. For example, the positive initial energy for particles in Big Bang is canceled by negative gravitational energy.

You don’t have “nothing” if you have “something” with a "set of properties which cancel each other out…etc.

You haven’t refuted the argument, you have redefined the term “nothing” to include something. :tsktsk:

 

[STT]

You don’t have “nothing” if you have “something” with a "set of properties which cancel each other out…etc.

You haven’t refuted the argument, you have redefined the term “nothing” to include something. :tsktsk:

No, as I argued you can get something out of nothing. I didn’t redefined nothing. I discuss this in more details in another thread since the subject was off topic. You are welcome to join me there.

 

[IWantGod]

You don’t have “nothing” if you have “something” with a "set of properties which cancel each other out…etc.

You haven’t refuted the argument, you have redefined the term “nothing” to include something. :tsktsk:

The age old game. Thanks for pointing it out:thumbsup: