I am arguing as a theist, although I do not believe what I am arguing.
That video is just creepy Chuboy :P
Anyway, I will now make my argument for why there is a God. I will first use my spin on the classic ‘cosmological’, or, ‘first cause’, argument. My argument basically has four steps:
(1) Everything that begins has a cause.
(2) The universe began.
(3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
(4) Naturalism here is more complex than God.
(5) Therefore God is a better explanation scientifically than an explanation without God. Ockham’s Razor… turned on its head! HA, TAKE THAT ATHEISTS!
Phase (1): Premise I
I say ‘begins’ for a very important reason because this is my argument. To reply back saying “What caused God?” is futile, because my argument is not that “everything has a cause”. Ooh, sneaky. So don’t turn my argument into a straw man.
The logic behind this premise is simple and intuitive: everything we have observed to begin has had a cause: it’s the principle of cause and effect that is assumed in science. What science does is we have an observation and we work to find its explanation. This first premise is just a simple restatement of this standard scientific axiom: and to deny this first premise Atheists, you will be denying one of the central tenants of your beloved science. So… if you want to use science against me in this debate… you have to accept my first premise as true!
One objection you could raise is that Quantum Mechanics allows for things to be without a cause. However, this confuses the notion of cause with predictability. Of course, Heisenberg taught us all that we can never accurately predict the behaviour of a particle; leading to the appearance that quantum phenomena may be uncaused. However as stated this is a confusion of two entirely separate notions.
Many would argue that God’s existence necessitates a cause: however a cause is necessitated only when something at a prior moment was in a different state: that is what I explained above and thus something that did not exist prior to a specific event has a cause. However if something has always existed or that it exists ‘outside of time’ then such a problem is circumnavigated. And such is God: a cause is unnecessary. To add to this a cause is also illogical as a cause implies a prior state, which God does not have (he is outside of time, “prior state” simply doesn’t make sense). Therefore, God does not need to have a cause. Of course you could cry foul here and ask why this doesn’t also apply to the universe, but that brings us to the next phase of my argument.
Phase (2): Premise II.
I’m sure we all know about the ‘Big Bang’, to quickly rehash, in 1915 Einstein published his theories of gravitation. In the 1920’s Friedman and Lemaître discovered solutions to Einstein’s equations which suggested an expanding universe, and if you go back in time you would find a point of singularity. In 1929 Hubble discovered the ‘red shift’ from other galaxies: the Big Bang theory began to take shape. Not all believed it, but in 1964 Wilson and Penzias detected Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (C.M.B.) literally the smoke from the gunshot. So if we accept the above, the universe ‘began’.
Now, let me clear up a few things. Often the erroneous assumption is made that the expansion of the universe is just galaxies moving away from eachother: that is not the case. Remember this is the solution to the theory of General Relativity; the theory of gravity in geometric terms. Basically gravity is space and time curving around matter and energy: since the Big Bang theory is derived from this space-time not just matter expands. Think of it like this: even though two points are getting further and further away, they are still in the same position relative to everything else as it is expanding. When this reversed, the opposite happens: the universe is compressed to a point of zero size and thus infinite density, called singularity. This is time and space “zero” if you like. I hope this explains it to anyone baffled by these theories.
Anyway in the past eighty years no real progress has been made in getting around the predictions of Friedmen and Lemaître: the Big Bang model is indeed part of the standard model of cosmology. Thus we must conclude that the universe to exist.
Phase (3): Implications of I and II
From premises one and two, this conclusion naturally follows. I don’t think this phase will be disputed at all due to its simplicity and intuitiveness.
Phase (4): Premise III
I’m sure this will be the hottest form of contention. The way I see it we can have two explanations for the cause of the universe: a naturalistic explanation and a theological explanation. The way I will argue this is show that the naturalistic explanation is inferior, superfluous and complex: thus its alternative is what should be believed. The very logic which many atheists use will be turned on its head by replacing “God” with “Naturalism” and slicing it to bits with Ockham’s Razor. Ooh, tricky!
Anyhow the main objections that may be raised will probably be based off string/M-theory or a multiverse, however I say this now and clear that such, unlike the Big Bang, have no empirical support and thus die under Ockham’s Razor. Plus they mainly deal with what happens after the Big Bang not what caused it, but anyway. I’m prepared to take down whatever naturalistic explanations for the universe arise that don’t have any empirical evidence.
Anyway the universe can’t cause itself, mainly because of both the constraints of time and of course common sense. Almost every naturalistic explanation involves a large number of unsupported hypotheses that must be assumed to be true without any empirical evidence. This may be the same for God: although it is inherently obvious that the theory of a creator is much simpler axiomatically than M or string theory. What I’m saying is that in the manner which atheists deny God as superfluous, it can be said that naturalism is even more superfluous when it comes to creation.
Phase (5): Conclusion
Thus the default and practical position should be theism. The central question is not “Does God exist”, but “Why does the universe exist”, to which of all the various answers “The God Hypothesis” is the most likely and best as shown above. Take that, bitches.