A Rational Ontological Argument

A Rational Ontological Argument

My ontological argument is not from perfection as Anselm, and Descartes was. My argument is from the the perspective of existence and it is much simpler to follow.

1: Existence is a fact. (anyone not agree with that?)

2: Were there ever a time that existence in some capacity was not a fact, nothing could or would now exit.

3: Therefore, existence in some form has always been a fact.

4: What ever has always existed, by default, must be creative. Were it not creative, we would not exist.

5: A creative process or god as defined as that which produced us, is then a fact.

In theological terms this is proof a god exists. But the formula does not prove the god is intelligent let alone conscious, nor does it prove it isn’t.

This leaves two main choices brought about by the fact that we now have an alternative to the theological view in the form of science philosophy.

With the laws of thermodynamics it becomes clear that the only thing that qualifies as always existing in one form or other, is energy.

Even in all Big Bang theories, the universe is not created from nothing, it starts out as potential energy.

Yes, some scientists have written books that suggest otherwise, but that's because when physicists say nothing, they don't mean nothing. See this video by    
Lawrence Krauss for an explanation from the scientists mouth. He has also stated that he will clarify this issue in his next book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Penrose just released a new theory of the Big Bang in which the universe ends up being static. It's worth looking into.

But no where in any theory, contrary to Christian and other popular belief, do scientists say there is no cause.

So, if god is simply the process of existence, does it still qualify as god? If you define god as that which produced all things, then yes.

More by this Author


7 comments

kfassett profile image

kfassett 6 years ago

The problem with your argument, which is the same problem with every ontological argument, is this: you make gigantic leaps and pass them off as self-evident.

In step four, you say that what ever has existed must be creative *by default* or else we would not have been created.

I will not make the argument whether or not this is a logical leap to make. I don't think it is, but this is not what I want to engage. What I DO want to say is that "creative by default" is a major flaw here. What is your definition of creative? How strictly will you define the terms? It can be creative by default if there are two options and you have proved the other option in correct.

But you need to include a premise that there are only two options and what those options are. As far as I can see from your argument, you intend those two options to be "either existence is not a fact or things are creative." This seems like sloppy logic to me.


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 6 years ago from Canada Author

>The problem with your argument, which is the same problem with every ontological argument, is this: >you make gigantic leaps and pass them off as self-evident.

Well, I’m not sure I have made any leaps. But you are right. Most ontological arguments make assumptions and each comes to its premise through a particular definition of what a god is. Descartes and Anselm before him tried to make a case from the perspective of perfection. It was doomed to fail because perfection isn’t an objective idea. In fact, absolute perfection is impossible. A god that is perfect would have no needs and therefore no need to create anything. If there were a perfect god we would not exist.

But we do, so that eliminates a perfect god. However their idea was that we couldn’t think of a perfect god unless that had implanted the idea in us, because as they argued, we can only think of things we have experienced and none of us experienced absolute perfection.

That doesn’t hold water either because humans have always thought their lives could be better than they are. We can certainly imagine our lives as being better. And when we get what we want we can imagine something better than that. In the end, though, there comes a point where we can imagine that all our needs are met. So that becomes a stopping point and that’s what we consider perfection.

So Descartes and Anselm were wrong. Perfection is something we can imagine even though it is impossible except in relative terms.

I went by existence, which at least is a fact. It all depends on how you define what a god is.

>In step four, you say that what ever has existed must be creative *by default* or else we would not >have been created.

Well I did not say created, I said we would not exist.

>I will not make the argument whether or not this is a logical leap to make. I don't think it is, but this is >not what I want to engage. What I DO want to say is that "creative by default" is a major flaw here. >What is your definition of creative? How strictly will you define the terms? It can be creative by default >if there are two options and you have proved the other option in correct.

Well there are only two options. We either exist or we do not. What ever produced us is creative by default because we exist.

>But you need to include a premise that there are only two options and what those options are. As far >as I can see from your argument, you intend those two options to be "either existence is not a fact or >things are creative." This seems like sloppy logic to me.

Well I did include two options. There really aren’t any others. We exist or we do not and it is self-evident that we do.

I mean, are you really doubting there is a creative process? Isn’t that self evident as well due the fact that we live in a world full of animals and plants and even rocks? Do they all not interact and does that interaction not lead to new things?

So what that leaves us with is one of two options again. Either that creative process is a super being, or it is a natural non-conscious process. I really do not think there are any other options. If you can name some I’d be interested to hear them. And aliens or something like that creating us is not an alternative. What I mean is it would be irrelevant. Something produced the aliens. If not then they are gods by most people’s definition, and it is not the Christian god in particular I was talking about.

In any case, that was also part of the ontology. It may prove a creative force exists, which didn’t need to be proven because it is self evident, but it does not prove the existence of the Christian or any other conscious god.

Now, a couple hundred years ago no one could point to anything that was permanent in nature. Science has now discovered something that is: Energy. So now we do have a viable alternative to a conscious god. Energy is creative. It can not be created or destroyed. But it is constantly transforming, which is what creativity is all about.

And having something eternal to point at is essential because if the universe had ever been void, we could not exist because you can’t make something from nothing. So something has to have always existed.

We have proof now that the something is energy. Now that doesn’t mean a super being does not exist anyway. It just shows that probably such a being is not required.

So really I do not see where I have assumed anything or taken any great leaps. Unless of course you can argue that there is no creative process or that we do not exist, or that a universe can pop up out of absolutely nothing. None of which I think you would argue for.


AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

I'm with kfassett here there is a non-rational assumption in:

"What ever has always existed, by default, must be creative. Were it not creative, we would not exist."

Your first 3 posits are sound, but it breaks down on the 4th. In what sense are you referring to creative? Is all matter by definition 'creative'? Are you meaning to say that all matter has a desire to make something new or different?

Are you perhaps meaning 'created' ie: all matter is an artifact?

If this is so, then that contradicts your first statement. Either matter always existed or it was created.

have a look at fatfist's postings on why creation is impossible also on hubs

cheers


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

Well no. All energy/matter is creative by default, not by way of desire. I did not say matter was created, I implied that humans, plants, animals, planets etc, were created as in: produced through a process. That process being cause and effect acting upon the nature of energy/matter.

But the hub was about giving a rational alternative to traditional ontological arguments. I defined what god is distinctly: That which produced us and all things.

I laid out why it is logical to say something had to produce us. Obviously we did not produce ourselves.

But I pointed out that what produced us does not have to be conscious. Leaving the alternative to a conscious god, being an non-conscious process.

So no where do I take a leap or contradict myself.

As for fatfist, I'm afraid he isn't one of my favorite authors. But no need to go into that.


AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

I don't think I disagree with your point of view, but I'm still hung up on your use of 'creative'. (Not a criticism of your writing, likely my own bias)

Creative is a word I associate with willful intent. Oxford English dictionary defines 'create' as "cause something to happen as a result of one's actions" and 'creative' as

"relating to or involving the use of the imagination or original ideas to create something"

As you have said in your reply that "what produced us does not have to be conscious" this is where I'm having the trouble. So again, in what sense are you using the word 'creative'?

Where I am seeing a contradiction (again, possibly just my bias at work here) is that having established that existance is a fact and always has been, you go on to say that we were created.

Are you saying that 'existance' has always been and that its purpose is to bring new things into being from that which has always existed?

In which case, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just trying to clarify what you are saying.

'Creation' has always been a concept that I apply to the prescence of the will of some sentience to make something in a new way (new to the sentience, not necessarily new to existence)

Are we perhaps saying that the nature of existence is to change? Without sentience or consciousness, is it creativity or is it simply inertia?

Again, just writing for clarification. It helps me develop my own thoughts so I thank you for the post.

cheers


Slarty O'Brian profile image

Slarty O'Brian 5 years ago from Canada Author

"Are you saying that 'existance' has always been and that its purpose is to bring new things into being from that which has always existed?"

Not it's purpose, unless you consider purpose to be function, which I do. It's nature would be an other way to put it.

"'Creation' has always been a concept that I apply to the prescence of the will of some sentience to make something in a new way (new to the sentience, not necessarily new to existence)"

You have to realize that I was making a comparison between traditional ideas of god and untraditional ideas. If god is a sentient/conscious being then create is the right word. But if it is not then produce is the right word.

I agree that the word create has the connotations you mentioned. But it is also used to simply mean produced by the general public. I don't usually use it that way but may have for effect here. Not for the atheists but for the religious. It helps them understand the concept.

On the other hand I think sentience is just a more complex form of what you term inertia. I'm not sure that's the best word but it will do. So a case could be made for saying created is the same as produced. Do you see what I mean?


AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

I understand what you are saying now if 'creative' = 'productive' in this context.

Thanks for clarifying.

cheers

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working