An Arguement For The existence of God

[MindOverMatter2]

1. “Nothing” cannot truly (objectively) exist, for there is no objective truth in nothing. This is to say that “Nothing” is not nature or a being.
2. Potential realities have no realities of their own. This is to say that existence is not intrinsic to their nature. If existence was in fact intrinsic to their nature, they would have always existed in their entirety with no beginning or end. They would timelessly exist.

3.Since “Nothing” cannot be a true objective reality, and potential realities have no realities of there own, there must be a necessary being that is “existence” by nature, through which potential beings exist. Because it is existence by nature, such a being has all that is true of its nature as existence, and thus “existence” (as a nature) cannot be added to its nature; because it already has it. It is a united whole, having no potentiality, beginning or end, and is therefore timeless by its nature.

1. Such a being, in so far as it is existence by nature, would perfectly exist; it would be the root all power since it is the foundation of all true beings; it would be the giver life because it is the foundation of all true natures; its being would be present to all potential realities because it is reality, and thus all potential beings would exist through its reality. Because all potential realities have no intrinsic reality of their own, they are created from nothing accept the eternal act of existence. Existence has no potentiality and thus has no changing parts or forces from which new beings can potentially and naturally exist or proceed from. There is no change in that which is existence by nature, and thus natural or physical events, cannot proceed naturally from that which is naturally existence. If it is not a natural event by which things are created, the only other possible event is an act of intellect; its creative act has to be perfect and thus timeless, and therefore its creative act has to come from a perfect mind and will. This mind and will must necessarily, timelessly and perfectly, know its nature, and thus know all possible ontological and mathematical realities that can be true because of its nature.

By M.A.J. Linton.

This is one of a few experimental arguments i have being putting together. Of course they derive from hours of reflection on Aquinas’ five ways and the ontological argument. However; do not mistake this for the ontological argument. It is not the ontological argument.

What do you think?