The 'Cosmoepistemological' Argument
For God's Existence
The fact that we're all capable of observing and interacting with nature does not mean that it is reasonable or rational to conclude that nature is all that exists. Naturalism is not the default worldview.
Quite to the contrary, in fact.
The Origin Of Nature
"What is the origin of nature?" is the matter in question. To answer the question by appealing to observation and experience of so-called "natural" events and processes is to commit the fallacy of question begging. Nature includes natural events and processes, so in addressing the origin of nature, one must account for the origin of said events and processes. We can observe machines that make other machines, but clearly this would not justify the assumption that machines originated via machines. One must look deeper.
Nature (the universe) cannot cause itself to begin existing because it would first need to exist in order to bring itself into existence. In other words, "x" would have to exist in order to cause itself to exist, which is logically impossible. To suggest that "x" could exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way is a violation of the law of non contradiction. It is an exercise in absurdity.
But nature cannot be infinite, either, because infinite natural events cannot be traversed. Imagine playing back a video recording of endless past natural events and occurrences up to the present moment. Obviously, your video playback would never reach the present moment, meaning we wouldn't be here to question the origin of nature.
The atheist will often suggest that "something like a quantum vacuum" brought nature into existence. But is this entity, whatever it may be, natural? If so, then it is subject to the aforementioned problems.
And if this entity is not natural, then it is a supernatural entity. If any proposed entity lacks any of the qualities of what we call "nature," including matter, energy, space and time, then it is supernatural by definition. E.g., if whatever caused the universe is timeless, then per the law of identity it is no longer natural; it is supernatural.
At this point we've established that nature cannot come from nature. Thus, something outside of nature, that is, something supernatural, brought nature into existence. Whatever brought nature into existence necessarily transcended nature.
And therefore, it is not rational to presuppose naturalism. Observation of nature does not warrant naturalism. Direct experience with nature does not warrant naturalism. Natural science does not warrant naturalism. "All bets are off" in this regard. The existence of nature lends no support whatsoever to naturalism, materialism, or atheism in general.
Intelligent Vs. Non-Intelligent Supernatural Causation
The next question we must address is this: "Is/was the supernatural entity that brought nature into existence intelligent, or non-intelligent?"
Christians, for example, propose that this supernatural entity is intelligent. Most naturalists and atheists, for example, propose that the entity was not intelligent. What starting point best accounts for human existence and experience?
To answer this final question, we will turn to epistemology. Following are five epistemological arguments demonstrating that a supernatural intelligence, that is, a supernatural agent, brought the universe into being:
1. In a purely materialistic, non-intelligent existence, human thought processes would be predicated soley on fluctuating arrangements of matter. Arrangements of matter, such as chemical structures, behave according to the laws of nature and not according to what is true. Thus, "true thought" would not possible in a non-intelligent existence. But of course, human beings think in terms of what is true and logical. This requires an external, transcendent, intelligent source whereby truth has been revealed to mankind.
2. The only potential standard for truth in a mindless existence is non-intelligence. But a non-intelligent entity doesn't have knowledge and therefore cannot be the standard of truth. Without an objective standard of truth, one man's subjective conclusion that 1+1=3 (or any given truth claim) would be just as valid as one who correctly concludes that 1+1=2. Apart from revelation from an absolute mind, we would be left to our own devices in the sense that we'd have only our subjective human natures to appeal to, and therefore no objective standard by which to separate truth from falsehood. At best, we'd have nothing more than arbitrary opinions. But of course, we know that 1+1=2 and other such true statements are true regardless of human opinion.
3. Intelligence is defined as an ability to acquire and apply knowledge, meaning intelligence requires knowledge. Knowledge can only come about by being transferred from one mind to another, because an "empty mind" cannot gain knowledge of reality... A certain amount of foundational knowledge is required to gain new knowledge. For example, a priori knowledge of the concept of identity is needed in order to gain new knowledge of reality. If one did not have an initial understanding that objects are what they are and are not what they are not, one could never understand that an apple is an apple, and not also an orange. Therefore, human intelligence could have only originated via a pre-existing mind possessing great knowledge.
4. Is it logically impossible for objective truth to be gained by subjective mental faculties. In a non-intelligent existence, one would be unable to determine whether their mental faculties are reliable and capable of properly apprehending truth and knowledge without begging the question by assuming the reliability of their mental faculties. Thus, one would be forced to appeal to the very thing in question in order to conclude the reliability of that thing. Begging the question in this manner is viciously circular and therefore irrational, by definition.
5. Objective moral truths are (also) known by mankind. Nature is amoral. Thus, knowledge of moral truth must have come from an intelligent being with moral characteristics.
In this article we have demonstrated that nature was caused by a supernatural entity, and through arguments from epistemology we have further demonstrated that this supernatural entity was an intelligent being.
Click here for more.