An Ontological Argument for creationism

  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?

How can we explain morality without God?
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?

Lordship salvationist shows legalism with gays

"It is abominable in the eyes of God and every person who dies as a homosexual will be denied entrance into heaven (1 Cor 6:9)"

Me: Brother let's consider the implications of this statement.
first the proof text.
"9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1. These sins are in a package so you can not isolate one sin over the others.
2. The implication of a sin disqualifying a person for salvation means that the blood of Christ alone can not secure salvation without an internal righteousness from the believer.
Either(A) this required righteousness blocking a disciple from ever receiving salvation.
(B) This required righteousness is post regeneration and yet the reborn disciple may lose their salvation.
(C) This required righteousness means there is never any assurance of salvation.
Now there are presuppositions I believe we agree with
A) All scripture is inspired and authoritative.
2 tim. 2:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
B) we must consider the whole counsel of God.
Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

I believe Paul teaches a different message than this interpretation from other passages.
A) Salvation is free)
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
B) Christians are secure in their salvation.
Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

So at this point I am motivated to look at another interpretation.
The context is concerned with believers.
1 corinthians 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?"
The believers had these sins in their past.
1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
Paul intends that they not abuse their liberty to sin.
1 cor. 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. "
We must be holy in light of the security our salvation. Not to obtain it.
1 cor. 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?"
Those whose sins keep them from the gospel are doing so not because of there unrighteous deeds, but they excuse their unbelief.
2 Cor. 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
The gospel is without works because the spiritually dead can not be sanctified.
Rebirth is at salvation and the unbeliever is NEVER saved.
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."
Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. "
Hebrews 4:4 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world."

The lordship salvationist then scolded me for too lengthy of an answer. And that settled it.

Does this sound like pelagianism?

"Moral depravity is sin.  Sin is a violation of moral law." pg. 245
"3.That men are morally depraved is one of the most notorious facts of human experience, observation and history.  Indeed I am not aware that it has ever been doubted, when moral depravity has been understood to consist in selfishness. The moral depravity of the human race is everywhere assumed and declared in the bible. and so universal and notorious is the fact of human selfishness, that should any man practically call it in question--should he, in his business transactions, and in his intercourse with men, assuming the contrary, he would justly subject himself to the charges of insanity.  There is not a fact in the world more notorious and undeniable than this.  Human moral depravity is as palpably evident as human existence.  It is a fact everywhere assumed in all governments, in all the arrangements of society, and it has impressed its image, and within its name, upon every human thing human." pg. 246-247 Finney's Systematic Theology lecture 16 Moral Depravity (1878) Bethany house Publishers 1994

Pelagianism

the heretical doctrines of Pelagius, 4th-century British monk, especially a denial of original sin and man’s fallen spiritual nature, and an assertion that man’s goodness was sufficiënt for him to work out his salva-tion without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Semi-Pelagianism. — Pelagian, n., adj.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pelagianism

"By this is intended that the moral depravity of the unregenerate is without any mixture of moral goodness or virtue, that while they remain unregenerate, they never in any instance, nor in any degree exercise true love to God and to man," pg. 248 ibid

"It therefore follows, that while sinners are selfish, or unregenerate, it is impossible for them to put forth a holy volition.  They are under the necessity of first changing there hearts , or their choice of an end, before they can put forth any volitions to secure any other than a selfish end.  And this is plainly the everywhere assumed philosophy of the Bible." pg. 249Now I am not posting this to say that finney's theology is not worthy of criticism.  His emphases on rationalism seems like a natural road to the later liberalism of the school.
But typically, his name has been demonized in hopes of defaming the impact he made upon American Christianity.  Nearly 100,000 converts with over 90% faithful unto death.
If you watch this reformed podcast "he White Horse Inn"
https://youtu.be/Q5Gaqa8Cr6Y
You will see Finney is plainly identified as a Pelagian.  They had 140yrs to find this edition and 25yrs to find the latest printing.
In the appendix George F. Wright discussed how Charles Hodge did a hit piece on Finney and besides disagreements over his interpretation Hodge refused to deal with the later edition of Finney's Theology and apparently this misrepresentation has been the common understanding ever since.
   Yet they give you this image that Finney was a godless emotionalist heretic.  If you hear his sermons this is not the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k50Vu6TZa20&list=PLCpgggEg1Jgo6wUR02E9LZsAJdDQS8V0H

It is a sad state where professional theologians proclaiming the title "Divines" will slur and slander a minister out of competition.


 

Danny Faulkner: throws classic geocentrism a bone.

The view point of geo-centrism has been a position of ridicule if not persecution for decades in the science community.  Even though some of the top physicist have admitted to it's possibility The media and academic society have made it a no-no. In fact they have been even more successful at framing geo-centricity as the same as flat-earth,  This is in hopes giving non-Christians the idea that Christians were anti-science, liars etc.

These forms of psychological manipulation can be very powerful and overwhelming in a world where society has placed Bible believing Christianity at a lower-status and thus whatever reputation is gained. It takes courage for Dr. Faulkner to make this statement.  Not because he is siding with Geo-centricity, but because he is risking ridicule to be fair to it's proponents and I commend that.

"There are some very highly educated people who are geo-centrists today, including physicists and at least one person with a PHD in astronomy.  Geocentrists use Physical arguments, but there main motivation seams to be their belief that the bible teaches that the earth does not move. And this movement appears to have any flat-earthers in their midst.
    "It should be obvious that flat-earthers must be geo-centrists. However, one ought not to confuse the "traditional" or Tychonic, geocentrists described above with the flat-earth movement.
It is ironic, however that after the Tychonic geo-centrists had labored for decades, the sudden rise in the flat earth movement has resulted in their probably being more flat-earth geocentrist today than there are geo-centrists who believe the earth is a sphere.  To add insult to injury, that flat earthers use many of the arguments, both physical and biblical, that they borrowed from the Tychonic geo-centrists.  However it is doubtful that any flat-earthers understand the physical arguments as well as most Tychonic geo-centrists do." Dr. Danny Faulkner "Falling Flat: A refutation of Flat Earth Claims ch. 7 pg. 201-202 aug 2019 Masterbooks publishing