As a side note, I do not present this positive argument for the 'existence' of something that people might label as 'God' with the assumption that Atheism is a 'default' position that needs no logic for it's own support. To be intellectually honest, any position on anything, whether the negation of a concept, or the support of a concept, both require some logic that follows from fundamental ideas that can be known 'A Priori', in order to be labeled as 'Rational'. To avoid misunderstandings, I use the term 'A Priori' to describe the fact that I take my three starting assumptions as three ideas that are true in 'Prima Facie' way. In other words, I've never met someone that actually believed either of these three were false, as they would have to inconsistent with their own negation of those three unless they ceased to exist themselves
That is more than enough introduction for what follows, but I hope the following format is helpful for understanding the lines of Logic:
Foundation: Logic (a.k.a. Common Sense/ Reason)
Assumptions:
A. Infinite: This idea is a knowable, defined concept that is true.
B. Cause – effect: (a.k.a. Series relation) This idea is a knowable, defined concept that is true.
C. Something exists (to ask the question.) We asked the question, therefore something exists.
1. The Laws of infinite series:
1.1. The completion of an infinite series of continent things cannot exist. [By Definition]
1.1.1. For example: An Infinite library where ‘previous’ books must be read first.
1.1.2. In fact: The completion of an infinite set is necessarily false.
1.2. Potential infinite series can (and do) exist. (i.e. Time does exist.)
1.3. Series can and do exist. (i.e. a knowable relationship between real things.)
1.4. Time is a series of events governed by Cause-effect. (i.e. contingent)
2. If 1.1 is true, Then it follows that
2.1. If an infinite number of events had to completed for event B to occur, then event B would not exist.
2.2. Give that Event B exists. (a.k.a. the present time or ‘now.)
2.3. Therefore the infinite # of events cannot be the basis of the present. [Modus Tollens]
3. Order/information exists and is knowable:
3.1. Order/information always decreases and is decreasing. [2nd Law of Thermodynamics]
3.2. And infinite past would require ‘coming from’ an infinite amount of order.
3.3. An infinite amount of order would still be infinite after subtracting the finite order that now exits.
3.4. Because an finite amount of order is what exists in the present in the physical universe.
3.5. Then it follows that an infinite past cannot exist. (same as 2.3) [Disjunctive Syllogism]
4. Application of [2] or [3] to the nature of Universe:
4.1. The universe (A time-space continuum) behaves in a knowable time-dependent manner = continuous series.
4.2. The completion of an infinite continuous series cannot exist.
4.2.1. (from 2.3 or 3.5)
4.3. Therefore the universe is not infinite in the ‘contingent’ direction. (The past) [Modus Pollens]
5. Because we are here, we have to answer the question of why/how we exist, this can be easily reduced to two basic possibilities:*
5.1. Either something is ‘in essence’ eternal OR Something came from nothing for no reason.
5.2. Something coming from nothing for no reason is “Ad Hoc” , contrary to uniform and repeated experience, and therefore unreasonable.
5.3. Therefore something is eternal. [Disjunctive Syllogism]
6. Last two options:
6.1. Either the universe is eternal or something other than the universe is eternal.
6.2. The universe is not eternal (by 4.3 or 2.3)
6.3. Therefore something must exist that is itself greater and fundamentally different** then the universe at it’s maximum point which caused this space-time continuum to be. (Call it X) [Disjunctive Syllogism]
* If something came from something which came from something which came from something, you end up with a series which by definition 2.3 is absurd.
** Obviously X must not be governed by Order decreasing or by the Series Law, for if it was you would end in infinite regression thereby nullifying that option. However, since we do exist, we must asked the question, so we are forced to the conclusion. It is fallacious to assume that something that can be known via logic must (for some Ad Hoc reason,) conform to the same 'Cause-Effect' pattern that everything we have 'a posteriori' knowledge of is confined with. Einstein showed that a failure of imagination does not disprove any of the implications and actualities of his Relativity Theories.
.