(1) existence is infinite and has no start. It could take all sorts of forms at various times but must include our existence (universe) as one of the possibilities and iterations. This is called infinite regress. This has implications, and an infinite number of them are absurd. So it is ruled out.
Or
(2) existence had a beginning. Since (1) is not possible because it is absurd, then this option must be the answer logically. If there is a third, I have never seen it. So the answer is (2)
Now the logical answer is (2) so we are then forced to answer this by stating its implications or what is probable or certain. If there is an answer that explains this, then it is a logical solution to the basic question of why does anything exist. If there are more than one logical answer, then the issue is what is most likely.
So far, there is only one logical answer. Namely, a simple entity whose existence is uncaused. It must exist outside of change or it exists outside of time. (define time as change). Such an entity will explain everything and nothing else will. So by process of elimination or logic, the answer is an entity that is self existent and unchanged and exists outside of time.
Then many characteristics of this entity are discoverable or what this entity must logically be. Two characteristics are that it must be extremely powerful and extremely knowledgeable because the existence we see must have been the result of such.
The above is my understanding and if anything is wrong with the reasoning, I would certainly like to see it. It definitely could be fallible in ways I have not seen. I believe it is consistent with what Patrick Flynn believes though I understand that he has added much more than what I have stated. My objective is to make the basic argument simple so that someone with a grade school education could understand it and also understand that there is no valid alternative out there. The second part of this is the most important part, that there is no valid alternative.
The argument is quite simple as I understand it:
Either
(1) existence is infinite and has no start. It could take all sorts of forms at various times but must include our existence (universe) as one of the possibilities and iterations. This is called infinite regress. This has implications, and an infinite number of them are absurd. So it is ruled out.
Or
(2) existence had a beginning. Since (1) is not possible because it is absurd, then this option must be the answer logically. If there is a third, I have never seen it. So the answer is (2)
Now the logical answer is (2) so we are then forced to answer this by stating its implications or what is probable or certain. If there is an answer that explains this, then it is a logical solution to the basic question of why does anything exist. If there are more than one logical answer, then the issue is what is most likely.
So far, there is only one logical answer. Namely, a simple entity whose existence is uncaused. It must exist outside of change or it exists outside of time. (define time as change). Such an entity will explain everything and nothing else will. So by process of elimination or logic, the answer is an entity that is self existent and unchanged and exists outside of time.
Then many characteristics of this entity are discoverable or what this entity must logically be. Two characteristics are that it must be extremely powerful and extremely knowledgeable because the existence we see must have been the result of such.
The above is my understanding and if anything is wrong with the reasoning, I would certainly like to see it. It definitely could be fallible in ways I have not seen. I believe it is consistent with what Patrick Flynn believes though I understand that he has added much more than what I have stated. My objective is to make the basic argument simple so that someone with a grade school education could understand it and also understand that there is no valid alternative out there. The second part of this is the most important part, that there is no valid alternative.