ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

A Rational Ontological Argument

Updated on December 22, 2012

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.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 

      7 years ago

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

      Thanks for clarifying.

      cheers

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa

      "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?

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 

      7 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 imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa

      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.

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 

      7 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 imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa

      >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.

    • kfassett profile image

      kfassett 

      7 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.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)