Ontological Insanity?

It is in fact metaphysically possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists.

. Because it’s possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists, a Greatest Conceivable Being does exist in some possible reality. (remember the atheist's multiverse where anything that can happen does happen?).

. Because of the very nature of a Greatest Conceivable Being, if a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in some possible reality, it exists in every possible reality.

. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in every possible reality, then it exists in actual reality.

. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in actual reality, then a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in our reality.

Because the above premises are true and coherent, it stands to reason that the conclusion is also true: A Greatest Conceivable Being or God exists.

Sounds fanciful. Doesn't it? Richard Dawkins calls the Ontological Argument for God's existence “infantile,” but he fails to point out the problem in its logic. He seems to think that if something sounds too simple, them it must be too simple. Dawkin's problem is, the argument is logically sound. “It breaches no laws of logic, commits no confusions and is entirely immune to Kant's criticism.” Perhaps Dawkins just doesn't understand modal logic. Let me try to flesh it out a bit.

On Modal Logic we can deal with what must be the case, what might be the case, and what could not possibly be the case. This is in contrast with ordinary logic of what is and what is not.

A Greatest Conceivable Being is one whose greatness is infinite (omni everything) in every possible world. This Being is not contingent in any possible world. This Being exists necessarily in every possible world.

Here is where Dawkins and his ilk dig their own grave. Dawkins, the Prima donna that he is says that God is as likely to exist as real fairies living at the bottom of his garden. 


Mistake. 


For Dawkins to NOT categorically deny the existence of real fairies in this world, is saying that in some possible world, real fairies do exist (again the atheist's multiverse where anything that can happen, does happen). To say that the existence of real fairies is as likely as the existence of Creator God, is to admit that in some possible world God does exist. But God is not like a fairy. God is the Greatest Conceivable Being, His existence is necessary and if He exists in some possible world He must exist in EVERY possible world including the actual world. This means that if it is even possible that God exists, then it is necessary that He does exist.

One of the greatest thinkers ever, Leibniz, could see plainly that either the universe is necessary (it can't NOT exist) or the Cause of the universe is necessary. Either matter is eternal (and we now know that it can't be) or the Cause of matter is eternal.

By itself of course the ontological argument is just a mixing of words and thoughts. Combine this argument with the fact that our contingent universe does exist, a universe that demands an explanation for its existence from a necessary Cause and the argument takes on extraordinary importance.

The characteristics of a Greatest Conceivable Being match perfectly what we know of Creator God.

. If this Being exists anywhere It exists everywhere.

. If It exists in any possible reality It exists in every possible reality (even in the atheist's multiverse).

. If It exists at any point in history, It exists at every point in history.

. If He is Lord of any kingdom He is Lord of every kingdom.

. If He ever lived He lives for eternity.

Now some might point out that this argument could also say that a Greatest Conceivable Being does not exist. We could use the same points to make the case. That's true. However the ontological argument does not stand in isolation of one very important fact. Our universe exists. Our universe could not have had a natural, material cause because nothing natural or material existed until the universe was brought into being.

Only someone utterly committed to a material world-view would refuse to take this argument seriously. 


We're off to the lake. See you Monday.

“Perhaps the best argument that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.”
Astrophysicist C. J. Isham

For example: “The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.”
Quentin Smith

That’s the most reasonable belief that an atheist scientist can come up with?

To have atheist scientists say things like, “The Big Bang didn’t have a cause,” or “The Big Bang didn’t need a cause,” would be laughable if they weren’t so desperate and pathetic. Those kinds of comments certainly aren’t coming from science. They’re coming from a faith based position with no evidence to support it, a faith based position that is being promoted in a final gasp of life as science itself is proving the existence of Creator God.