Physical reality (all spacetime) began to exist. Five evidences:
• …[Big Bang] Gravity equations yield a past-bound singularity.This is relevant because if physical reality began to exist then its cause provably has several properties, including: being able to exist independently of space, time, and matter, with both the ability and disposition to cause the universe to exist. This sounds very suspiciously like God.1 By contrast, it is a uniquely awkward and surprising development for atheist thinkers; it “was not even remotely expected”2. (In fact, atheists largely hated it and labeled the idea unscientific.)3
• …[BGV theorem] Any average-exanding space has a beginning.
• …[2nd Law] Total entropic decay has not arrived yet.
• …[General 2nd Law] Total generalized entropy is not maxed.
• …[Philosophy] Logically, prior events cannot number to infinity.
But no, [All forthcoming]
•…a beginningless-cosmos model is true (e.g. emergent, pre-BigBang, cyclic).
•…the Schrödinger equation implies the past is eternal.
•…time does not truly exist.
•…there is no first point in time.
•…the singularity isn’t a first event (its not in time).
But so what? Couldn’t it simply be that…
•…it wasn’t caused to exist?
•…the cause isn’t God
The Universe/physics is fine-tuned for permitting life.1 That is to say, of all the known ways the universe could have been, few ways would ever allow any life to exist. Consider…
• …the initial conditions of the universe are fine-tuned.
• …the laws of physics are fine-tuned.
This is a very awkward and shocking development for atheist cosmologists2 because it means for them that we got really lucky for no reason. If God exists, however, then the Universe’s ability to permit life is not nearly so surprising or improbable.3 Such a universe is the kind of thing God would plausibly choose to create.4
But no, …
• …changes just yield different life forms
• …constant's can't be different (T.O.E.)
• …life-friendly Universes are rare but probable[Forthcoming]
• …one can't do probabilities with an infinite range[Forthcoming]
• …new knowledge will eliminate fine-tuning
• …over 99.9% of the universe is hostile to life.[Forthcoming]
But so what if the Universe is fine-tuned (or life-permitting)? Plausibly…
• …many universes exist or existed, and we won the universe lottery.4
• …we would not be here unless the unlikely did occur.
• …the Universe is equally fine-tuned to permit rocks, etc.[Forthcoming]
• …it is only fine-tuned to life as we know it.
• …God would need a fine-tuner, too.
• …“God did it” is not an explanation.[Forthcoming]
• Geoff Brumfiel (Nature Magazine's Washington Correspondent): “If you believe the equations of the world’s leading cosmologists, the probability that the Universe would turn out this way [life-permitting] by chance are infinitesimal — one in a very large number.” [“Our Universe: Outrageous Fortune,” Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (Jan. 5, 2006)]
• Paul Davies ([Agnostic-turned-Deist] Physicist; Professor at 6 Universities [Cambridge, London etc.]): “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life.” [“How bio-friendly is the universe?” International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 2, no. 2 (2003): 115.]
The Universe is fine-tuned for being discoverable[Forthcoming] (i.e., of all the known ways the universe could have been, and even among the subset which allows for lifeforms, few have initial conditions, laws, and physical constants which would ever allow those lifeforms to learn about it). This is a very awkward and shocking development for atheists 1 because it means for them* that we got really lucky for no reason. If God exists, however, then the Universe’s amenability to being discovered and known is not nearly so surprising or improbable.2 Such a universe is the kind of thing God would plausibly choose to create.
Features of living organisms appear as if they were intelligently designed (even if the appearance is only superficial). Consider…
This is relevant because if God did not exist, then the likelihood of this being true is very low. Simultaneously, if God does exist, then life's appearing intelligently designed is not nearly so unexpected because life actually being intelligently designed is not unexpected.
But so what if life gives a superficial appearance of design? Plausibly…
• … [life evolved in an unguided way that mimics the pattern of intelligent design].[Forthcoming]
Our cognitive faculties (perception, memory, reason, etc.) are such that they are generally reliable.1 (That is to say, they are more inclined to recommend to us true beliefs rather than false ones.) Consider that intuitions justify beliefs;…
• …intuition justifies belief that x happened in the past.
• …intuition justifies belief that x exists outside my mind.
• …intuition justifies belief that x is conscious.
• …intuition justifies belief that x is objectively morally wrong.
• …intuition justifies belief that x could've occurred.
This is relevant because it is awkward and unexplained if atheism is true, whereas if theism is true, it is not nearly so unlikely or unexpected. After all, creating moral agents with generally reliable cognitive faculties able to interact with each other is the kind of thing a good God would plausibly choose to do.2
But so what if our cognitive faculties are generally reliable? Plausibly…
• reliable faculties were selected for by an unguided evolutionary process.[Forthcoming]
As studies show, humans are innately inclined to be theists; they instinctively find theism commonsensical or intuitive. (By “intuitive” here, we mean that cognitively healthy humans from childhood into adulthood are innately predisposed to think atheism “seems” false or absurd). Consider…
• …Atheists find theism intuitive. (Finland study, 2013)
• …Humans are born believers. (Oxford study, 2011)
• …Intuitive thinkers favor theism. (Harvard study, 2011)
This is relevant because in the absence of a new belief which undercuts or rebuts it, it is rational to heed the suggestions of our philosophical intuitions. Doing otherwise runs one into severe worldview consequences, where one is suddenly unable to justify one's most basic beliefs.
But so what if God-belief is instinctive? Couldn't it be that…
• …the God intuition is a misleading evolutionary byproduct?
Some actions are objectively morally wrong (i.e., wrong despite what anybody believes). This is relevant because the existence of such specifically personal facts in the world is unlikely if the world is, at bottom, impersonal (particles and physics), and yet it is very much the kind of thing we would anticipate if a God exists who grounds the world and who could not fail to have been loving, honest, etc.
But so what? Plausibly… [All Forthcoming]
• …x's net consequences are bad.
• …x is done for bad reasons.
• …x wouldn't be done by an “ideal observer”.
A metaphysically necessary being exists (that is to say, there is an entity/thing which, by its own nature, could not fail to exist). Consider…
• …A “Sum-styled” Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• …A “Start-styled” Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• …Pruss's Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
• …A Big Bang Argument from Beginnings
• …Rasmussen's Modal Argument from Beginnings
• …Weaver's Argument from Beginnings
This is relevant because the entity in question will, by necessity, have a series of properties which strikingly resemble those of God.1
[Brackets] mean “forthcoming.”
God's properties are incoherent, contradict, or entail contradictions For example…[All forthcoming]
• …Some properties are incoherent all by themselves, like…This is relevant because if God's properties are incoherent or impossible, then God is incoherent or impossible.
• …Omnipotence (all-powerful)
… … (e.g., …it means unliftable rocks can be lifted)!
• …Omniscience (all-knowing)
• …Omnibenevolence (all-good)
• …Free will (libertarian freedom)
• …Perfect rationality
• …Some properties are incoherent in relation to other properties, like… [All Forthcoming]
• …Being timeless and personal
• …Being omniscient and libertarianly free
• …Being omnipotent and omnibenevolent
• …Being all-just and all-loving
The idea of a God existing is extraordinary and extravagant.[Forthcoming] (That is to say, the prior probability of God’s existence—prior to looking at evidence—seems very low.) This is relevant because a low prior probability is functionally similar to having evidence against it. More complex and bold hypothesis have more ways/chances of being wrong. We expect them to be wrong in the absence of sufficient evidence.
• …the God of bare theism is more simple than a single fundamental particle. God is a unified soul (an unbreakable thing with no parts) 1, and even that is its simplest form: it fundamentally need have only the two (or three) properties necessary for being a soul, and in their simplest form.2
• …reason alone confirms theism (or something close). [Forthcoming]
Fundamental reality is mind-less (or mathematically describable). This is relevant because God is essentially a thinking-thing without limits, and God's behavior cannot be captured by mathematical equation.
No, [All Forthcoming]
• …Mental properties exist.
• …Souls exist
• …Heaven exists
• …Moral facts exist
• …The cause of of the natural world exists
• …it would make for a better world.This is relevant because so many today and throughout history have suffered, sometimes even through horrific pain.
• …it is more loving.[Forthcoming]
• …belief in God is required for relationship with God.This is relevant because there are so many today and throughout history who have inculpably remained in non-belief, persons who have obviously not had any God convincingly meet them or otherwise bring them to belief.