Summary
Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause.
Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
Premise 3: The universe exists.
Conclusion: The explanation of the universe's existence is God.
"The only adequate explanation for the existence of a contingent universe is that its existence rests on a non-contingent being - something that cannot not exist because of the necessity of its own nature."
Questions
1. If it were enough to simply say, "the universe exists and that's that", why do people everywhere intuitively wonder about the reason it exists... and why shouldn't they?
2. Do you understand and agree with the distinction between:
- Things that exist contingently (because they are caused by something else - they don't have to exist) and...
- Things that exist necessarily (by necessity of their own nature - they cannot not exist)?
3. "It's logically possible that this universe might not have existed", but the same cannot be said of God. Why not?
4. Is it reasonable to call the explanation of the universe "God"? Or do you prefer, "The extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being, who created the entire universe and everything in it"???
Back to Zangmeister Reasonable Faith Videos
Next video: 3. The Kalam Cosmological Argument