FREE ESSAY ON IS THERE A GOD?

IS THERE A GOD?

PJ: Hey Bob. Why are you all dressed up?
Bob: Well I just got back from church.
PJ: When are you going to give up on that God thing?
Bob: Never. Infact I bet you $10 that I can prove the existence of god.
PJ: Your on. 
Bob: Ok, the first thing you need to understand is the PSR.
PJ: What is the PSR?
Bob: It's the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It states every event has a cause. i.e.
you
don't get something from nothing.
PJ: Ok
Bob: The next thing you have to understand is the difference between something being
contingent or necessary. A contingent being doesn't explain itself. It depends on
something else for it's existence. Where as a necessary being explains its own existence
and doesn't depend on anything to exist. For example, a chair is something that is
contingent, because it was made by someone.
PJ: I don't see what this has to do with God.
Bob: You need to understand the basics before I can prove God's existence to you.
PJ: Ok.
Bob: The Cosmological argument is one of the oldest and best arguments around and will
surely convince you. 
1. The universe exists and is contingent.
2. Thus, the universe relies/depends on something else for it's existence.
3. This something else is either a necessary being or a contingent being.
4. Suppose it is contingent, the it depends on something else. ad infinitum
5. An infinite regress of explanation violates the PSR. An example of this one is the
old
billiard ball example. If a ball goes into a pocket you ask what caused it. The answer is
the
ball that hit it before, and the ball that hit the one before it. See the infinite
regression will
not work.
6. Thus, this something must be a necessary being.
7. Lets call that being God.
PJ: Well I'm not sure about that. You are committing the part of a whole fallacy. Just
because the universe is made up of contingent things doesn't make it contingent.
Bob: Good point. But, what else could it be. The only other option is saying the
universe
is necessary.
PJ: Well why couldn't it be?
Bob: Lets me a thought experiment to convey why not. Imagine you are walking along in
the forest and you come across a translucent sphere six feet in diameter. You try and
move
it, but you can't. You try and puncture it, but again you can't affect it. So you ask me
where it came from and I tell you that it's always been here. It doesn't depend on
anything
and there for it is necessary. I don't know about you but I think that sounds
ridiculous.
Now enlarge the sphere to the size of the universe. You can fill it with stars and
planets
and space. But it still sounds ridiculous.
PJ: Ok you've convinced me that the universe isn't necessary, but what if the universe
is
just a brute fact. What if it is just here and it is just a fact. 
Bob: Well that makes me worry a little bit. If that is true then this argument doesn't
hold
water.
PJ: Ha ha. Give me my 10 bucks.
Bob: I'm not going to give up yet. I've got a better and older argument. This one is
called
the Ontological argument. But first you need more basics. You need to understand
existence in reality and existence in understanding. You also need to understand the
BGC.
PJ: Ok. Explain them.
Bob: You exist in reality and in understanding. Where as Zeus the Greek god exists in
understanding but not in reality. And a 4 sided triangle doesn't exist in either. You get
it?
PJ: Yea, but what is the BGC?
Bob: The BGC stands for the "Being than which none greater can be conceived". Ok now
we're ready.
1. Suppose that the BGC doesn't exist in reality.
2. Never the less, the BGC is conceivable.
3. The BGC would be greater if it existed in reality.
4. Ergo, a being greater than the BGC is conceivable.
5. Line #4 is a contradiction
6. Line #1 is false and the BGC does exist in reality.
PJ: Wow that is argument almost proves the existence if God.
Bob: Alright gimme my 10 dollars.
PJ: I said almost. You see your problem in the structure of the argument. You see you
can prove way too much with this line are argument. Lets place something in the place of
the BGC. The Island than which none greater can be conceived. The IGC.
Bob: Ok I'm following.
PJ: 1.Suppose that the IGC doesn't exist in reality.
2. Never the less, the IGC is conceivable.
3. The IGC would be greater if it existed in reality.
4. Ergo, an island greater than the IGC is conceivable.
5. Line #4 is a contradiction.
6. Line #1 is false and the IGC does exist in reality.
Now I'm not sure about you, but I find an IGC foolish and impossible. 
Bob: Ok well an island can always be improved on. But the BGC is unique. 
PJ: I'll buy that. But existence doesn't make something any better. It's not a
describing
thing. Its not a quality. Therefore it can't make something any greater. I'll give you
an
example. Imagine you want a bottle of wine. And you tell your friends to pick up a
bottle
of 1987 Napa Valley red, plus it has to be from Robert Mondoby woodbridge edition, oh
yea by the way could it also exist. You see that doesn't make sense.
Bob: Ok I'll make my last revision. Lets say instead of proving that the BGC is better if
it
exists. Then lets say that BGC is better if it is necessary.
1. Suppose that the BGC doesn't exist in reality.
2. Then it doesn't have necessary existence.
3. Never the less the BGC is conceivable.
4. The BGC would be greater if it had necessary existence.
5. Therefore a being greater than the BGC is conceivable.
6. Line #5 is a contradiction.
7. Line #1 is false and the BGC exists in reality.
Ok. Now has that convinced you!
PJ: Sorry buddy. I still believe that the Universe is a brute fact. But I'll tell you
what. For
trying so hard and putting up some great arguments, I'll buy you lunch.
Bob: Ok. Thanks.
As you can see. I believe that the universe is a brute fact, but I also believe in God. I
just
haven't found an argument that has convinced me yet.