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.