God Exists

[GrandizerII]

By God I mean a necessary, non-physical, and personal being who created all things: seen, unseen, discovered, and undiscovered. Being a Christian, I believe God is more than that, but this post is about the general concept of God.

Do you believe in the god that is triune in nature and who, through the Son, is incarnate in Jesus? If so, I have to wonder what kind of logical bridge gets you from a logically plausible first cause to what is a patently absurd idea of a god? If not, then what do you mean then by "more than that"?

But the idea that the universe is eternal is logically incoherent and not to mention against what contemporary scientific evidence suggests. For the latter, I refer you to a certain point of a debate between philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig and physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss (https://youtu.be/mj4nbL53I-E?t=5408). Despite being a staunch and vocal atheist, Dr. Krauss begrudgingly admits in this YouTube clip that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe being past-finite.

The issue here with your argument from scientific evidence is that Krauss is not the contemporary scientific evidence on whether the universe had a finite past or not. For that, we need a conclusive body of research in cosmology/astrophysics that points to the conclusion that the universe did indeed have a finite past.

Going back to the logical problem with the second explanation, the incoherence stems from the implications of an eternal universe. If the universe is indeed eternal, then that means our universe has already been through an actually infinite number of changes or processes, all leading up to the present. Otherwise, the present wouldn't be occurring. But how did an infinite amount of changes already transpire? The fact that these changes were traversed seems to suggest that they're finite rather than infinite. This seems to be a big problem for the atheist.

One plausible answer to this is that time is not how we intuit it. Under the B-theory of time, for example, there is no flow of time. Which means there are no traversion of infinite amount of changes to worry about. And therefore, if the B-theory of time is true, then the Kalam argument fails. Even William Lane Craig has had to admit this, and this may be partly why he advocates for the not-so-scientific A-theory of time

I argue that in order for the second explanation to work, God must be the eternal cause. This is because God doesn't go through changes. He's not made up of parts or processes. He's non-physical or immaterial. Therefore, God being past-eternal doesn't lead to the same implausible implication that an actually infinite number of changes has already transpired.

You are arguing for some eternal cause which you have been conditioned to label "God". That is fine, except then it's a case of you making an argument for something that ultimately is not what you're aiming to convince atheists of.