This paper will present a philosophical argument for the existence of God. The argument will present three proofs. All three proofs will be based upon logical principles of impossibility and necessity. Certain things are logically impossible and certain things are logically necessary. This argument shall demonstrate why a universe without God is impossible and why a universe with God is a logically necessary postulate.
In seeking to prove the existence of something we must first define our terms. If one seeks to prove the existence of God we must first ask, what is the standard of proof? Having been trained as a lawyer, this writer shall use standards of proof from the American legal system. The American legal system has several standards of proof. It does not have a standard of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt since almost nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The highest standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and this standard is reserved only for criminal cases. This is perhaps too high a standard when exploring matters of philosophy and cosmology, for there is still so much we don't know. Therefore, this paper will not attempt to prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another standard of proof is proof by "clear & convincing evidence" which is the second highest standard in American law. This is a high standard but lower than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the opinion of this writer that the existence of God can be proven by clear and convincing logical evidence. However, this paper will instead use the lower standard of "proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard of proof is employed in most civil cases and it simply means that something is more likely than not. In mathematical terms it says that the probability of something is greater than 50%. Thus, the argument which follows will assert that the existence of God can be logically proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Simply put, it is more likely than not that God exists.
It should be noted that atheists sometimes shy away from the burden of proof. If by the end of this paper the ardent atheist still rejects the arguments presented herein, then let us be clear about what that means. It means that the burden of proof will have shifted. If one says it is more likely than not that God doesn't exist, more likely than not that the universe was not the product of a living, conscious, and intelligent creator, more likely than not that the universe is purely random, then the person making such a claim must proffer a logical argument to support that claim. The argument they proffer must be equal to or superior to the arguments presented herein. (See Appendix B)
Before proceeding further, a slight caveat: This is not a scientific paper. This is a philosophical paper. If at the outset one demands to see scientific evidence then they've come to the wrong place. We ought to have the highest respect for science. Science is marvelous. But science only goes so far. When we have exhausted our scientific answers and are still left perplexed, that is often where philosophy comes in. Even science itself stands on the shoulders of philosophy. As a matter of fact science used to be called "Natural Philosophy." So if, ab intio, the ardent atheist insists on scientific proof she's come to the wrong place. If (no matter what argument is proffered) she will throw her hands up and boldly declare, "God of the Gaps!" then she might as well not read any further.
Now that we've defined our standard of proof, the next question must be how do we define the thing we wish to prove? How do we define "God?" For the purposes of this paper "God" is defined as follows: a being that is the Creator and/or the ultimate source of the entire universe. This being which we call God absolutely must have at least the following three attributes:
1) Life
2) Consciousness
3) Intelligence
God might or might not have other attributes such as omnipotence or omniscience but they are irrelevant to this proof and so will not be considered. With this in mind, our argument can be divided into three parts: The proof from life, the proof from consciousness, and the proof from intelligence. Since this argument is based upon life, consciousness, and intelligence, it shall hereinafter be referred to as the LCI Argument. As will be explained in the forthcoming pages, all three parts of the LCI Argument are grounded upon the logical axioms of impossibility and necessity. It will be demonstrated by a preponderance of logical evidence that:
1. God is alive
2. God is conscious
3. God is intelligent.
If it can be proven that something is alive, conscious, and intelligent then we of course must say that such a thing is real. It exists. Surely that which is alive, conscious, and intelligent is very much real. Thus, it will be shown that God is real. God exists. The following three syllogisms demonstrate that God (as the ultimate source of our universe) must exist:
1) The Proof from Life
Life cannot be created by or derived from something that is not alive.
LIfe exists in the universe.
Whoever or whatever created or is the ultimate source of the universe must be alive.
2) The Proof from Consciousness
Consciousness cannot be created by or derived from something unconscious.
Consciousness exists in the universe.
Whoever or whatever created or is the ultimate source of the universe must be conscious.
3) The Proof from Intelligence
Intelligence cannot be created by or derived from something unintelligent.
Intelligence exists in the universe.
Whoever or whatever created or is the ultimate source of the universe must be intelligent.
Therefore, "God" who is the being, beings, or thing, that created the universe and/or is the ultimate source from which the universe is derived, must be alive, conscious, and intelligent.
Let us elucidate this idea further with an analogy. We are all familiar with chairs and toasters. But no one of sound mind would say that a chair or a toaster could be the creator or ultimate source of the universe because chairs and toasters are neither alive, conscious, nor intelligent. According to everything we know both from science and from logic, life, consciousness, and intelligence can only originate from something that is itself alive,conscious, and intelligent. To put it another way, it is absolutely impossible for life, consciousness, or intelligence to originate in or be derived from something that is inanimate, unconscious, and unintelligent. This is why we logically and instinctively know that chairs and toasters can't be a source of life, consciousness, or intelligence.
To put it another way, logic dictates that it is absolutely necessary that whoever or whatever created or is the ultimate source of our universe must be alive, conscious, and intelligent. To say otherwise is absurd. To say otherwise is as outlandish as saying chairs and toasters could be a source of life or consciousness. To say otherwise is a most extraordinary claim and should be supported by the most extraordinary evidence. The LCI argument declares that we should accept the much simpler and more logical explanation: It is more likely than not that God is the creator and/or ultimate source of our universe.
What connection do chairs and toasters have with the creator and/or ultimate source of our universe? Chairs and toasters, like most things, don't need to exist; they are contingent things. Their existence is wholly contingent upon the existence of other things. Someone invented toasters. Someone built the chair you're sitting on. The existence of chairs and toasters is contingent upon the intervention of some outside force. It's impossible for chairs or toasters to exist in nature. Since chairs and toasters (contingent things) exist, it is logically necessary to postulate an intervention by a living, conscious, and intelligent creator. The chair exists only because a living, conscious, and intelligent carpenter built it. The toaster exists only because a living, conscious, and intelligent inventor created it. But that explanation is still not satisfactory. It begs the question as to what is the ultimate source of the carpenter's life, consciousness, and intelligence? What is the ultimate source of the inventor's life, consciousness, and intelligence?
Atheists say that we just don't know. We shouldn't make any assumptions and we'll just have to wait and see if science comes up with something. Ironically, these same atheists usually assume that however our universe was created it almost certainly had nothing to do with God. Instead of just giving up and saying we'll have to wait around for science to come up with something, we can instead turn to philosophy. Reason itself can be our guide! Where science cannot reach, the light of reason can still show us the way. We don't know everything but with the aid of reason we emphatically do know some things. Reason tells us that certain things are logically impossible and certain things are logically necessary. It is impossible for a living, conscious, and intelligent carpenter to exist unless that carpenter had a creator and/or ultimate source that was itself living, conscious, and intelligent. It is impossible for a living, conscious, and intelligent inventor of toasters to exist unless that inventor had a creator and/or ultimate source that was itself living, conscious, and intelligent. Put another way, the existence of life, consciousness, and intelligence logically necessitates the existence of an ultimate source that is itself living, conscious, and intelligent. Life can only come from life. Consciousness can only come from consciousness. Intelligence can only come from intelligence.
We shall now consider two more analogies to better understand the principles of impossibility and necessity. The first example shall be called the Mars Pebble. Imagine if you will, a small pebble is found on the surface of Mars. This pebble is collected by an explorer and brought back to Earth whereupon the explorer boldly proclaims that someday this tiny pebble, through natural processes we don't yet understand, will become a living, conscious, and intelligent pebble. From this tiny Mars Pebble there will someday evolve symphonies on par with Mozart and paintings on par with Rembrandt. Would we not think such a claim to be preposterous? The person making such a claim would be thought to be insane.
Of course, anything is possible. Perhaps in 13.7 billion years our little Mars Pebble will have magically evolved into a living, conscious, and intelligent entity. But from everything we know about the nature of the world that is nonsense. It's absolutely impossible for an inanimate, unconscious, unintelligent pebble to somehow spontaneously evolve and then become endowed with those very same properties. Furthermore, if it were somehow possible for this Mars Pebble to become alive, conscious, and intelligent it could not possibly do so on its own. If it somehow did acquire these three properties it could only be because someone or something that already possessed those qualities had intervened and acted upon it.
Perhaps a brilliant scientist in the distant future or perhaps a powerful alien wizard from a distant planet could intervene and cause the Mars Pebble to become or evolve into a living, conscious, and intelligent organism. Barring such an intervention, reason tells us that it's impossible for that pebble to do anything on its own. Furthermore, reason dictates that if that pebble (or something derived from it) did someday become living, conscious, and intelligent, there must by logical necessity have been an intervention by some outside force, an intervention by someone or something that already possessed those same qualities.
Now let us imagine a vastly smaller version of our Mars Pebble, a very small and very dense speck of cosmic space dust. Instead of the Mars Pebble we have the Big Bang Pebble, an infinitesimally small and infinitesimally dense singularity. Is it reasonable to think that this mysterious singularity, while being the font of all existence as we know it, existence that includes life, consciousness, and intelligence, was not itself imbued with those very same qualities? Does that not defy logic? On the contrary, it is axiomatic that if this tiny speck of cosmic dust was the ultimate source of life, consciousness, and intelligence then it must itself have been living, conscious, and intelligent. If it was not already living, conscious, and intelligent then it is axiomatic that there must have been an intervention by some outside entity or force that possessed those qualities.
Anti-theists and atheists would like us to believe that somehow, as if by magic, this tiny speck of cosmic dust just exploded on its own accord, without any conscious or intelligent intervention. Even if they're correct (which seems unlikely) and even if the Big Bang occurred spontaneously, we are still left with the principles of impossibility and necessity. Within that infinitely small and infinitely dense speck of cosmic dust existed the ultimate source of everything in the universe. Everything from Shakepere's sonnets to Mozart's music, everything from the Eiffel Tower to the Empire State Building, even the love we feel towards our friends and families would have its ultimate source in that very small and very dense speck of cosmic dust.
What do Shakespere’s sonnets, Mozart’s symphonies, the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower all have in common? They all require the same three qualities: life, consciousness, and intelligence. In short, they require God as their ultimate source. The concept of God as defined in this paper, is a creator and/or ultimate source of our universe that is alive, conscious, and intelligent. It is logically necessary to postulate that somehow, somewhere, within that infinitesimally small speck of cosmic dust there existed a living, conscious, and intelligent mind. Conversely, it is logically impossible for life, consciousness, or intelligence to originate from a source that lacks those very qualities! While much mystery still surrounds the origins of our universe, nonetheless we must logically conclude that it's more likely than not that whatever was in that mysterious singularity or whatever was its ultimate source, it had to have been alive, conscious, and intelligent. Simply put, it had to have been God.
The next example shall be called the Dry Bones example. In chapter 37 of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet Ezekiel finds himself in the valley of dry bones. The valley is filled with thousands of dry bones. God then intervenes and miraculously brings the bones back to life. Can dry bones come back to life on their own? Imagine if someone told you that President George Washington was going to build a chair and fix a toaster. You would rightfully think such a person to be mentally unbalanced. How could George Washington build a chair or fix a toaster when he's dead? Will George Washington's bones which lie in a crypt at Mount Vernon do such a thing? This is nonsense. It's nonsense because in order for a chair to be built or a toaster to be fixed, it is logically necessary to assume an intervening force that is living, conscious, and intelligent. But what does this have to do with proving that God is the creator and/or ultimate source of our universe?
Let us go back in time about 13.7 billion years. Imagine if at the start of our universe there existed only one thing: a bag filled with dry bones. This bag of bones would then magically explode and create the universe as we know it. We would laugh at such a hypothesis. And yet, anti-theists and atheists would have us believe that the universe as we know it is the natural result of a very dense and very small singularity that magically exploded. Let's assume for the sake of argument that they're right; the big bang was just a purely random, natural, and spontaneous explosion. Even if that is true we are still left with the principles of impossibility and necessity. Atheists would have us believe that this very small and very dense singularity (or whatever acted upon it) was neither living, conscious, nor intelligent. But that is logically impossible. It is not possible for life, consciousness, or intelligence to have an ultimate source that is inanimate, unconscious, and unintelligent. For a universe that contains life, consciousness, and intelligence it is logically necessary to postulate that the ultimate source of those things is likewise living, conscious, and intelligent. Can the source of fresh flowing water be itself dry? Can the source of light be itself dark? Can the source of warmth be itself cold?
Just as it was necessary for God to intervene and act upon the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision, the ultimate source of our universe logically requires the purposeful intervention of something or someone that is living, conscious, and intelligent. Those three qualities are all logically necessary. Can the source of all life be found in that which is dead? Can the source of all consciousness be found in that which is unconscious? Can the source of all intelligence be found in that which is mindless? Just as it would be impossible for the dry bones in Ezekiel's vision to get up and act upon their own accord, it is equally impossible for life, consciousness, and intelligence to exist unless their ultimate source was imbued with those very same qualities.
As demonstrated by the analogies above, a universe which contains life, consciousness, and intelligence (LCI) would be impossible without God. Thus, the existence of God is a logically necessary postulate. Lebnitz once asked, why is there something rather than nothing? Nothing in our universe needs to exist. Chairs and toasters don't need to exist and neither do telephones or elephants. Even you, the person reading this, doesn't need to exist but yet here you are. Life, consciousness, and intelligence exist in our universe and yet even those things don't need to exist. But since they do exist then by logical necessity God also must exist. The existence of life, consciousness, and intelligence (LCI) in the universe is strictly contingent upon the existence of a creator and/or ultimate source of that same universe that is itself living, conscious, and intelligent. In other words, a living, conscious, and intelligent God is a logically necessary presupposition for a universe that contains those very same qualities.
We have thus far mentioned the proof from life, the proof from consciousness, and the proof from intelligence, with all three being grounded upon the concepts of impossibility and necessity. While all three are strong arguments and all three point us in the same direction, a question that should be asked is, which of the aforementioned proofs is the most compelling of the three? Is it the proof from life? Life itself is perhaps hard to define. Do we define it biologically
or philosophically? We could debate when life begins or what it means to be "alive" and so the proof from life, while strong, is not the most compelling. What about the proof from intelligence? It's possible to doubt our own intelligence. Some express doubt as to whether or not the universe contains intelligence. And so the proof from intelligence, while also strong, is still not the most compelling.
We are then left with the proof from consciousness which indeed is the most compelling. Even if we could somehow doubt the existence of life or intelligence, the one thing we simply cannot doubt is the existence of consciousness. As Renee Decarte said, "Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am." Consciousness exists in our universe. Of this there can be no doubt. It exists in humans as well as in a myriad of other life forms. It exists in you, the person reading this. Even if an anti-theist could somehow find a way to doubt the existence of life or intelligence (no easy task) they would still be left with the existence of consciousness.
The existence of consciousness in the universe leads us indubitably and inescapably to one logical conclusion: whoever or whatever created this universe and/or whoever or whatever is the ultimate source of this universe, it had to be conscious! We might somehow doubt everything else but, as Decarte proved, we cannot doubt our own consciousness. If we cannot doubt our own consciousness, then this leads us inexorably to the following conclusion: It is indubitably necessary that consciousness emanate from an ultimate source that was itself conscious. It is logically impossible for consciousness to arise from an ultimate source that was itself unconscious. To claim otherwise defies logic and would be a most extraordinary claim requiring the most extraordinary evidence. Atheists have no such evidence.
To further illustrate this idea, let us now again think back to the beginning of our universe. The LCI Argument is most striking when we think back to the very beginning of our universe. The available scientific evidence says the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Imagine again, if you would, that very dense, very small, and indeed very mysterious speck of cosmic dust that existed at the outset of our universe. All that our universe would ever become over the next 13.7 billion years, indeed existence itself, was contained within that mysterious singularity. This was the ultimate source of the universe as we know it. Although the origin of our universe is perhaps unfathomably mysterious, the LCI Argument contends that there is at least one thing we can be sure of: The ultimate source of our universe had to have been living, conscious, and intelligent. Could it be any other way? Our a priori logic tells us no, certainly not.
13.7 billion years ago there was apparently no life in the universe and yet here we are, alive. 13.7billion years ago there was apparently no consciousness in the universe and yet here we are, conscious. 13.7 billion years ago there was apparently no intelligence in the universe and yet here we are, intelligent. Logic dictates that these three qualities of life, consciousness, and intelligence could not and did not just pop into existence by magic. They had to have been created by, derived from, or already present within an ultimate source that was itself endowed with those three qualities.
Beginning about 300,000 years after the big bang the universe experienced the cosmic "dark ages." Our universe was vast, dark, and quiet. Imagine the deep dense darkness back then, no life, no consciousness, no intelligence, just darkness and silence. And yet, here we are! If you're reading this you're alive, conscious, and intelligent. Thinking back to the dark origins of our universe makes the LCI Argument all the more vivid. Can you imagine life, consciousness and intelligence somehow magically arising for that silent dark void, from that nothingness? Life, consciousness and intelligence could never have come from that darkness unless it was already there to begin with!
The proof from consciousness should be emphasized because it is the strongest proof for God. Continue to think upon the cosmic dark ages. Think hard! Meditate on it. Imagine a vast, dark, and eerily silent universe containing not a trace of consciousness. Or perhaps think again upon that mysterious singularity, that very dense speck of cosmic dust 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists would have us believe there was not a trace of consciousness within it and yet from it a universe with consciousness emerges. Impossible. The ultimate source of that mysterious singularity had to have already been conscious. Or perhaps put another way, consciousness had to have been already present within it. That consciousness has a name: God.
Thinking about the silence and darkness during the cosmic dark ages one is reminded of the verse from Genesis: "And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Is it not preposterous to assert that life, consciousness, and intelligence could magically appear out of that darkness, out of that void? On the contrary, whoever or whatever created our universe, whoever or whatever is the ultimate source of our universe, it had to have been alive, conscious, and intelligent ab initio, right from the start. As it says in Genesis: “...and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep…”
Whether originally within that mysterious singularity itself or whether one picosecond after the big bang, or during the cosmic dark ages, it is logically impossible that life, consciousness and intelligence could somehow magically come from that darkness unless it had a creator and/or ultimate source that was endowed with those very qualities. The dark, quiet, lifeless, and unconscious origins of our universe vividly demonstrate why it is logically necessary to believe that there must have been something more, something living, something conscious, something intelligent. In short, there must have been God.
The physicist Max Planck is known as the father of quantum theory. Planck once said, "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
In summary, we now return to the three syllogisms we began with and that are the foundation of the LCI Argument. As has been demonstrated herein, these three syllogisms prove that a universe without God is a logical impossibility and that in order for the universe as we know it to exist, God is a logically necessary postulate.
1) The Proof from Life
Life cannot be created by or derived from something that is not alive.
LIfe exists in the universe.
Whoever or whatever created or is the ultimate source of the universe must be alive.
2) The Proof from Consciousness
Consciousness cannot be created by or derived from something unconscious.
Consciousness exists in the universe.
Whoever or whatever created or is the ultimate source of the universe must be conscious.
3) The Proof from Intelligence
Intelligence cannot be created by or derived from something unintelligent.
Intelligence exists in the universe.
Whoever or whatever created or is the ultimate source of the universe must be intelligent.
The origin of our universe is still mysterious but based upon the aforementioned LCI Argument we can and must conclude the following: It is impossible that the ultimate source of the universe was inanimate, unconscious, and mindless. Therefore, it is logically necessary to conclude that whoever or whatever created and/or was the ultimate source of the universe, it had to have been a living, conscious, and intelligent being.
The LCI Argument has thus proven the following by a preponderance of the evidence: We know that our universe contains life, consciousness, and intelligence. A universe with life, consciousness, and intelligence cannot have an ultimate source that is devoid of those very same qualities as that would be a logical impossibility. Therefore, in order for our universe to exist as it does, a living, conscious, and intelligent creator and/or ultimate source is a logically necessary precondition. This paper has defined God as the creator and/or ultimate source of our universe. Simply put, we can now say that God (the ultimate source of our universe) is alive, conscious, and intelligent. If we put those three elements together we can simply say, God exists. God is real. The LCI Argument has thus proven the existence of God by a preponderance of the evidence.
APPENDIX A
Answers to common anti-theist/atheist objections:
1) Your argument mentions chairs and toasters. We know how chairs and toasters are created but we have no idea how the universe was created. Why assume it had anything to do with a god or gods?
Answer: We don't know exactly how the universe was created. That's true. There's still a great deal of mystery to it. If one wishes to remain purely agnostic and simply say we have "no idea" how the universe came to be, that's fine, but then he or she should make no other claims on the subject and should be completely open to any and all possibilities. But most anti-theists and atheists are not open to all possibilities, they are not purely agnostic, and they indeed make a lot of assumptions.
So let's discuss assumptions. We make assumptions all the time, literally everyday. If we find a painting on a beach, we assume someone painted it. If police detectives find fingerprints and DNA at a crime scene they assume it quite possibly might belong to the culprit. If you ate too much greasy food for lunch and then experienced indigestion, you assume the greasy food might be the cause of it. It is perfectly reasonable to make assumptions so long as our assumptions have a rational basis. We do it all the time! We base our assumptions on the use of logic to make sense of our world. Of course, sometimes our assumptions might turn out to be wrong but that doesn't mean they were unreasonable at the time. It seems that anti-theists and atheists often make a rather stunning assumption. They assume, without evidence mind you, that whatever created our universe, or whatever was its ultimate source, it was most probably not a living, conscious, and intelligent being. This extraordinary assumption is a far cry from simply claiming ignorance as to how the universe was created.
Since we all make assumptions, we must ask which assumption is more logical? Which assumption is more likely than not to be correct? To assume that a universe which contains life, consciousness, and intelligence could somehow have an ultimate source that is inanimate, unconscious, and unintelligent is an extraordinary assumption that lacks evidence and defies logic. On the other hand, what is a much more logical assumption? Isn't it more logical to assume that a universe which contains life, consciousness, and intelligence most likely has a creator or ultimate source that is endowed with those same qualities? Such an assumption is logically sound and logically necessary. The opposite assumption, the one that ardent atheists cling to, is logically impossible.
2) We don't know how or why the universe exists but someday science will probably provide us with a natural explanation. This entire argument is all just based on a "God of the Gaps" fallacy!
Answer: Atheists often try to poke holes in any argument for the existence of God by immediately shouting, "That's just a God of the Gaps" argument!" First of all, let's be clear, this "God of the Gaps" concept is not a logical fallacy. It's simply an idea that possibly originated with Friedrich Nietzsche and became more popular in the mid to late 20th century. What atheists pejoratively call a "God of the Gaps" argument is in reality nothing of the sort. Admittedly, since humans aren't omniscient there do exist gaps in our knowledge. Luckily we are equipped with the capacity for logic and reason to make sense of these gaps.
Imagine a murder trial. The jurors have gaps in their knowledge but they also have clues. Perhaps the defendant had a strong motive and no alibi. Perhaps a size 10 shoe was found at the scene and when the defendant was arrested he was wearing only one shoe, size 10. There might even be fingerprints or hair and fiber evidence. A trial is simply a search for truth and the jurors will use their logic to fill in any gaps in their knowledge and then come to the most reasonable conclusion based upon the facts at hand. The so-called "God of the Gaps" atheists refer to is in reality the God of deductive reasoning! He is the God of logic, the God of philosophy. Science has done tremendous good for our world but science has its limits. There are some things science just can't answer. Does that mean these questions are not worth exploring? Certainly not! So we turn to logic. We turn to philosophy. We use the power of deductive reasoning and, as demonstrated by the aforementioned LCI Argument, reason inevitably leads us to God.
3) Aren't you just rehashing the cosmological and teleological arguments?
Answer: First of all, what's wrong with those arguments? They've been debated for centuries. What's wrong with reexamining them every once in a while? But no, this argument is actually quite different. This isn't necessarily about a first cause or Aristotelian "Prime Mover." A first cause/prime mover argument is certainly in harmony with the LCI Argument, but the argument stands on its own. Even if the universe is eternal, even if there is no cause of the universe, even if there is no "telos" to the universe, the LCI Argument still stands since it is not grounded upon any of those things. It is instead based on what we know already exists in the universe; namely, life, consciousness, and intelligence.
Unlike the cosmological argument which is grounded upon a first cause/prime mover or the teleological argument which is grounded upon design, the LCI Argument is instead grounded upon logical axioms of impossibility and necessity, coupled with three things we already know exist. Based upon the existence of life, consciousness, and intelligence in the universe, it follows that certain things are logically impossible; namely, an ultimate source of that same universe that is devoid of those same three qualities. As for necessity, since we already know that life, consciousness, and intelligence exist then it is logically necessary to postulate certain things about their ultimate source (whether that source be eternal or not). Since life, consciousness, and intelligence exist, it is a logically necessary precondition that their ultimate source (whatever that might be) is also living, conscious, and intelligent. Thus, even if the universe is eternal, even if there is no design to it, even if the ultimate source of the universe is somehow the universe itself, then the universe was ab initio imbued with life, consciousness and intelligence. In other words, God was and is the foundation of our universe. Even if the universe is eternal then that just means God was and is inextricably intertwined within the very fabric of the universe itself. God is, was, and always will be ever present in our universe.
4) Fine. Just for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. But then who created God? Why make things more complicated? You're violating Occam's Razor. Please be more parsimonious!
Actually, it's the atheist who is violating the principle of parsimony in Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says if we have a bunch of possible answers and we're not sure which one is right, we should go with the simplest answer. So then the atheist should embrace the LCI Argument! We know that life, consciousness, and intelligence exist in the universe. We don't know how the universe came to exist in the first place but the simplest answer to this great mystery is that whatever the ultimate source of the universe might be, it also had to be living, conscious, and intelligent. The simplest answer is that it's more likely than not that the ultimate source of our universe (whatever that is) must by logical necessity also be living, conscious and intelligent.
Who created God? Who knows? Who cares! Whatever might be the answer it does not alter the LCI Argument one wit. Perhaps God might be thought of as existence itself, the great "I Am" of the Bible. Maybe God is part and parcel of an eternal universe. Perhaps God is akin to Aristotle's Prime Mover that prevents an illogical infinite regress of causes. Or perhaps a wizard in a different universe created God. It doesn't matter! The simplest answer is that it's more likely than not that whoever or whatever created our universe, or if the universe be eternal, the foundation and ultimate source of that eternal universe must be a living, conscious, and intelligent being. That living, conscious, and intelligent entity is the ultimate source of all existence. It is God.
APPENDIX B
A Challenge To Atheists
Ardent atheists, or as this writer calls them, anti theists, express great skepticism when it comes to God. They will bend over backwards to attack any arguments in favor of theism. Skepticism and poking holes in arguments is all well and good. But what do they offer other than their extreme skepticism? These ardent atheists could just remain agnostic and simply say, "We don't know how the universe came to be, perhaps it was created by God or perhaps God doesn't exist, we don't know." That's a reasonable position. Who could fault someone for simply saying they don't know. But these atheists go much further than that. Like Richard Dawkins, they affirmatively claim that God does not exist and claim to know this with great certainty. But what do these ardent atheists offer other than their extreme skepticism? Do they offer any plausible alternatives?
Unless and until these ardent atheists can refute the three syllogisms of the LCI Argument, and unless and until they can offer an equally plausible argument than what has been presented here, then the LCI Argument must stand. The LCI Argument declares it more likely than not (over 50% probability) that God is the ultimate source of our universe. If atheists reject this claim, whilst simultaneously rejecting agnosticism, and instead claim it's more likely than not that the universe is purely random, lacking any conscious and intelligent source, then they too must proffer a reasonable argument for their claim. Their argument must not only refute the LCI Argument but must then provide an equal or better alternative. Instead, these ardent atheists sometimes wish to hide behind a veneer of agnosticism to avoid any burden of proof.
Let us be clear about what their rejection of the LCI Argument means. Unless taking a purely agnostic position, a rejection of the LCI Argument means the following: It means that you believe it is more likely than not, over 50% probability, that the universe was not created by a conscious and intelligent mind, that it's more likely than not that the ultimate source of our universe (whatever that source might be) was not a living, conscious, and intelligent entity. You believe that it's more likely than not that life, consciousness, and intelligence have an ultimate source that is devoid of those very same qualities. If that is their claim then let them provide evidence for it. Let these ardent atheists first refute the three proofs of the LCI Argument and then let them provide a rational argument that is equal to or better than what has been presented in this paper. Unless and until they do so, the LCI Argument must stand.