My rendition of a modal ontological argument for God
Premise 1 It is possible that God exist
logical proof of possible existence: Descartes
A: "I think therefore I am": For the starting point of Rationalism Descartes premise "I think therefore I am" is an apriori observation.
In light of skepticism over all reality, Descartes could not reject the reality that he was thinking. Because to reject such thinking, he would be operating his rejection as a thought. Thus the rejection of his thinking would be the fallacy of circular reasoning!
B. "I am limited" Within Descartes he knew that he had several limitations and these limitations are testified to by other persons.
So, we are limited by time, existence, intelligence, morality, space and power.
C. "If there is limitation, then there is limitlessness"
If something is limited. then it is less than that which is greater. So everything with a limit is limited. So that which is not limited is limitless. Thus for there to be that which is limited there must be something not limited which is thus limitless.
D. "That which is limitless is God" in opposition to the faculties of Decartes. (time, existence, intelligence. morality, space and power) God is by definition eternal, Necessarily existent omniscient, Most Good, Omnipresent, Omnipotent.
E. By definition God exist: because the limitlessness of limited existence is necessary existence. Necessary existence is more than existence. It means that all other existence is dependent upon the existence of what is necessarily existent. Thus God is the "maximally great being".
Premise 2 If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
I. The rejection of the existence found upon only 3 propositions.
A: God does not exist because God is logically impossible
B: God does not exist because God is a myth
C. God does not exist because God is no where in or outside of the universe.
C. Is unprovable Since man has no access to either all of which is in the universe nor all of that which is outside the universe. So it can not be asserted with any authority. Also Descartes 1st premise brings the faculty of intelligence which is found in the omniscience of God. Has a teleological dimension to it(I am intelligently designed) Thus it is "evidence of God verses no evidence of no God".
A. God possibly exists in premise one. But also we should note that there is evidence of this in the fact that one of the oldest and most productive academic disciplines in the history if civilization is systematic theology. Where people all over the world from many faiths have produced written material in journals, PHD's have been given out and governments have given accreditation to many such schools. In fact the most famous Historic thinker in opposition to God was Charles Darwin who acquired a degree in theology. Thus people understand a general definition of God.
II. Now part of the argument for A is based in malformed questions
"Can God create a Rock too heavy for him to lift?"
If we are searching the question over whether God logically exists, then the negative must be argued rationally. The idea behind the too big rock argument requires God to be defined illogically. If God logically exist then God is logical and if God is logical He will not be illogical. Thus the question is a bait-in-switch fallacy to redefine God illogically, to prove Him illogical.
Premise 3 If God exists in some possible worlds then God exists in all possible worlds
Rejection B:"God does not exist, because God is a myth"
A myth is an idea which is not real. Ideas that are not real and yet possible are called counterfactuals.
A possible world is a concept of reality in which the world would be scene if one fact was altered without creating an "impossible world".
If it is possible for God to exist in premise 1, then God exists in a possible world.
People in the opposition may argue whether "necessary existence" is justified as a faculty in this argument
But the entire definition of God rest upon necessary existence.
If God does not exist then he can not come into existence.
If God is eternal then he can not cease to exist.
Therefore if God exists his existence must be necessary.
A myth does not exist, a myth is not eternal, a myth is not omnipotent, a myth is not everywhere, a myth is not all powerful, a myth is not the most good.
Also the mathematician Go"del asserted these as "essential properties" to the definition of God.
"A property is essential to a subject if and only if for "all properties" the subject has "all properties" necessary to be materially equivalent to the property"
So in removing the necessary existence of God every necessary property of the definition of God is removed and thus it is not dealing with God at all!
Premise 4: For God to be a maximally great being in some possible worlds He must by definition exist in all possible worlds,
Because God stops being God in the other possible worlds. Just as light casting out darkness the equation just keeps repeating itself. God is possible by his very definition. Since the worlds are possible worlds, Then God is true in those worlds because by definition God is existent and obviously possible. Thus every idea is dominated under the truth of God's nature.
Now the logic here may not be natural to your sensation or "feeling". But this is because you have not experienced the thoughts on their own. Perhaps someone is budgeting with a calculator and the calculator rings up a different budget than they had in mind and perhaps it came up with the calculation instantly. This is just an effect by the speed of the argument because you are not comfortable with logic that is not accountable to your pace of logic.
It sounds insane if I tell you that the moon is the property of the United States. Why is it the property of the US? Assuming the moon landing, Americans were the first people to land on the moon and have proved it leaving a flag. Since there were no people to disputed the claim the land has been claimed by americans until they give it away.
Thus is the situation with God who has claimed not only the universe but all which surpasses it's boundaries.
Premise 5: If God exists in all possible worlds then God exists in the actual world.
The actual world is a possible world. After all the real world is possible!
The necessary existence of God then proves the real World!
Because up until this aspect of logic the "I think therefvore I am" starting point was certain though not subjective. The necessarily existent God is thus giving objectivity which Descartes lacked.
Descartes existence is now undergirded by the actual world and the actual world being possible is now founded upon the necessary existence of God!
SO, thus ends the normal chain of the ontological argument.
However, I believe this will imply a young earth creationism. Here is my concluding argument.
Premise 1 The actual world has been under girded by God and thus For the universe to be of limited duration and God to be eternal and creation to be based upon God. God must be the creator.
This could be illustrated in the kalaam cosmological Argument.
Premise 2 If the Creation is the work of God, the "Maximally Great "being" Then the process of creation was a process that was "maximally Great"
Premise 3 The idea of God must be an idea of divine Origins since the idea of God is divine.
Premise 4The origin of the onotological argument did not start for Rene Decartes. Rene borrowed the idea from the medieval theologian Anselm. Anselm got the idea from doing devotions through the psalms specifically psalm 14: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
They are corrupt, they have done abominable works,
there is none that doeth good."
In the form of prayer Anselm went on to explain why denial of the existence of God was foolish. thus the origin of the divine idea was founded upon scripture.
Premise 5 If the scriptures of the Bible produced the ontological argument, Then the scriptures Should espouse the essential properties of God.
The scriptures do identify Jehovah with the essential properties of God.
Exodus 3: 13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."
Exodus 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods?
who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
Deuteronomy 33:27 The eternal God is thy refuge,
and underneath are the everlasting arms:
and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee;
and shall say, Destroy them"
psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power:
his understanding is infinite.
psalm 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit?
or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there:
if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;"
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible."
1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?"
1 chronicles 16:25 For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised:
he also is to be feared above all gods.
26 For all the gods of the people are idols:
but the Lord made the heavens.
27 Glory and honour are in his presence;
strength and gladness are in his place.
28 Give unto the Lord, ye kindreds of the people,
give unto the Lord glory and strength.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;"
Hebrews 6:16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
Colossians 1: 16 for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Premise 6 If the idea of God and the ontological argument are divine based upon the message of scripture then the message of scripture is divine.
So now that we have rationally established the God of creation what does this say about creation.
Premise 1 Creation should be in accordance with biblical revelation of creation.
Premise 2 Creation should on a secondary level be in accord with modal and ontological logic
The theories of origins are thus logically going to be swayed by these two premises
The main understanding of origins can be divided into two general camps
A. Naturalistic evolution
B. creationism
Premise 1 evolution is based upon naturalism denies all involvement from God.
Ontological reasoning has proven creation to be dependent upon God and naturalism is not dependent upon God. Thus creation is not maximally great. But a maximally great God would make creation in a maximally great effort. Thus naturalistic evolution is not the product of the maximally great God.
Premise 2 Theistic evolution implies that living creation was created by an incredibly long period of death and destruction upon all species including some humans in the fossil record. Since the bible teaches that death is the curse of Sin. This creation is not maximally good. Thus theistic evolution is not the creation of the maximally great God
Premise 3 Since the common understanding of the creation message is that God created the world in 7 days and that it was a paradise.
Progressive creationism which teaches an evolutionary cosmology though rejection evolutionary biology.
A. Still fails with a fossil record arguing against a maximally good creation.
B. Muddies the ability of God to give revelation. The God who is not the author of confusion should not be offering confused revelation.Either God is not maximally intelligent or He is not maximally Good for being dishonest.
Premise 4 A maximally God is going to create an actual world that is good but free
A. With the good start of creation, the death according tot the bible is a result of sin and thus was conducted by free will.
B. God is allowing for free will, But God is also immanent through his scriptural judgements thus enticing mankinds towards the good and towards the maximally great ending, which will be a greater ending than the beginning. As the maximally great being has chosen the best possible world for eternity.
Thus the young earth creation with paradise and destruction is more in line with the bible and ontological logic.
Now, If God is real and He is the creator then He in his definition necessary to the universe.
God is infinite in time, existence, intelligence. morality, space and power.
How can we explain time without God?
How do we know the date or time if time has no beginning or end? How do we know that time is truly passing?
How can we explain existence without God?
We have already dealt with this...
How can we explain intelligence without God?
How do we know things?
we may have evidence or reason but what is the basis for these things without comitting circular log?
we may have evidence or reason but what is the basis for these things without comitting circular log?
And how can convince others?
How can we explain space without God?
Where is space?
How can we explain power without God?
what is the difference between strong and weak?
No comments:
Post a Comment