Does God exist?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Does God exist?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

before we begin may i ask a few claryifing questions?

Fire away. But here's the thing, questions are usually stalling tactics. So ask what you need to, but be ready to plant your flag on what you actually believe about God's existence. What's your opening move?

Never mind, I'll start. So to prove Gods eixistence i will use Leibniz's argument from contingency. Everything has an explanation for its existence That explanation is either external to itself, or that it exists necessarily (that it is logically, physically, or metaphysically impossible for it not to have existed) The universe logically, physically, and metaphysically could have not existed; therefore, it is not necessarily existent Therefore, the universe has an explanation external to itself.

You've buried the real problem in premise one. "Everything has an explanation" is doing all the work here, but you never justify why that's true. Why can't brute facts exist? You're assuming the principle of sufficient reason without argument, then using it to prove God must exist to satisfy it. That's circular reasoning dressed up in formal logic. If God exists necessarily, why does God get exemption from needing an external explanation when the universe doesn't? What makes God special?

Firstly, I'm appealing to PSR in the argument; that's why I said, "Everything has an explanation for its existence." Now for why God does not need an explanation. Well, because that's not the argument; Leibniz never says that anything external needs an explanation. God isn't exempt from the PSR. God's explanation is His own necessary nature. The universe, however, is contingent, so it cannot explain itself. The PSR distinguishes between necessary and contingent beings from the very beginning.

You're right that PSR applies to God too, but that's exactly where you stumble. You've simply *asserted* that God's necessary nature explains itself while the universe's contingency cannot. Why does necessity automatically self-explain while contingency doesn't? You're treating "necessary being" as a magical property that does philosophical work without proving it does anything. Show me why a necessary being requires no further explanation beyond its own necessity. That's the move you're glossing over, and it's where your argument actually collapses.

"You ask why necessity is self-explanatory. But you've mistaken what I mean by necessity. A necessary being is not one that merely happens to exist without explanation. It is one whose reason for existing is contained within its own essence. A contingent being can fail to exist, so the reason for its existence must be sought elsewhere. A necessary being cannot fail to exist, and therefore its sufficient reason lies in itself."

You're equivocating on "reason." A necessary being's essence being its own reason is just semantic wordplay, not an actual explanation. If I say "water is wet because of its watery nature," I've explained nothing. You've redefined necessity to mean "self-explaining by definition," then used that redefinition to conclude God must exist. But why should logical necessity entail metaphysical self-explanation? You need to prove necessity *actually explains itself*, not just stipulate it does. Why does God's essence differ from the universe's brute existence except in name?