Now go through the steps one by one and show me what's wrong with my logic?
Being Has to Be.
A. Logic of the Argument.
P1)Nothingness as a putative state of affiars (PSA) is impossilbe;it is a contradiction in terms since a PSA is something and thus cannot be total absolute nothingness.
P2)The concept of Nothingness as PSA is incoherent; What would total absolute nothingness mean? Even when Physicists speak of "nothing" they don't mean real absolute nothingness.
P3) If Nothingness were the PSA nothing could ever come to be; it cold not rise in time because time is something and thus the PSA would already contradict itself; it could not rise beyond time, since there is no change or causality beyond time.
P4) Thus, Nothingness cannot be a PSA, and therefore, something must have always been for all eternity.
P5) Since this "Something" has to be eternal, it must be necessary and without cause; Being Itself is the logially necessary candidate since the nature of Being is to be.
P6)Therefore, Being Itself, or the Ground of Being is eternal, uncreated, necessary being, and must be the thing that has given rise to all other things that come to be.
P7) These attrbutes, necessary, eternal, fist cause, creator of all that is, are the very crucial attributes of God.
P These attributes are mutually exclucive, that is, they could only be held by one enetity, and cannot shared in the same way at the same time; this can be seen immidately from the logic of he case; how could there be two grounds of being? How could there be two first causes or two things that are logcially necessary to have been the PSA?
P9) Therefore, God and the Ground of Being, or Being Itself must share identity.
P10) Since we Know that Being is, we know that God is.
Metacrock: Have Theology, Will Argue!