What I’m proving is that you haven’t done that. You’re argument fails to do what you’re demanding that I do.
Ontological necessity refers to existence. An ontologically necessary being means that the being always exists in any possible world (see modal counterfactuals) by virtue of its own necessary nature, rather than anything outside of itself. Uncreated.
So why would you demand (you didn’t ask) that I offer an argument that you failed to offer?
And why on earth would I agree to your demands?
I applied ontology to the structural definitions of the universe. You giving me this dictionary definition and thinking ontology is limited in that sense. Look at the last paragraph prior to my conclusion, thats where I applied ontology specifically, maybe now you will understand why i said you didn’t comprehend my argument. You kinda know the definition of ontology but you dont seem to know or understand how to apply it.
Alright, two things.
I’ve been Christian for 56 years, and arguing with (and defeating 
) very sharp atheists for about 16 years. Just like this, on a forum. Except you couldn’t go back and edit your response for most of those years. You better get it right the first time.
All of these philosophical or theological terms have specific definitions, and we kinda stick to those. Keeps everybody on the same page. I understand what you’re trying to say. You are saying that all of this evidence, astronomy and mathematics, unavoidably prove the “ontology” of God. But that’s a misuse of that term. It’s more proper to say that all of this evidence proves the existence of God. Now everybody knows what you mean.
Your title says that God uses ontology to prove that He exists. Maybe you now see why that claim doesn’t work.
I’m familiar with the entirety of the argument that you claim that you built. But I find the world of biology much more compelling, much more interesting, and much more intuitive. Better proof.
One of the debates I listened to today was held to highlight the strength of the Fine Tuning argument. This is the argument that the cosmological constant, the physical forces (gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electro-magnetism) space ratios and relationships is the most compelling argument to most atheists. It’s sort of lately including the applicability of mathematics as a side bar.
So it’s a good argument.
In conclusion (it’s past my bedtime and I am OLD!), for you to say that God uses ontology to prove Himself is a bit of a blunder. That’s all the edge that an atheist needs to discredit your entire argument, and, I agree with most of your argument. Lots of good stuff in there.
But I stand by my earlier assessment relative to using AI. Us old guys learned all this stuff the hard way. Well, there’s definitely something to be said for learning it the hard way, because your AI is NOT designed to be right, or truthful. It learns a consensus. It’s wrong way too often.
If you didn’t learn it the hard way, you would never know the difference.
Let me explain my argument in 2-3 sentences. In all 4 paragraphs i was showing that existence was necessay to existence, thats why the creator was necessary to exist because in order for the existence that was necessary to exist it had to have a creator to create it(necissary creator). Do you see how simple my argument is? do you now understand why I said you didnt comprehend it?
You said I didn’t understand it because you badly misjudged your opponent. Your argument is easy to understand, and the logic is elementary. But your argumentation has significant flaws.
As I said, you attributed dominion powers over the universe to mathematics. This is a flawed attribution. Mathematics has no causal relationship with anything. No powers at all.
Let me ask, for clarity’s sake - where do you thinks mathematics comes from?
All of these blunders add up to defeat for your arguments in a debate. I see what you’re trying to do, but the execution of your argument requires more careful precision. Every little word, every little claim has to be accurate.
Now you showing you didnt understand the pieces of evidence used in my entire argument, I spoke about mathematical laws(mathematics) which are also structural laws in celestial mechanics(astronomy). I never asserted they govern anything. You said i said that when i never did., remember? I know kepler’s laws are descriptive themselves. I Understood fully what i was using and chose to use. That includes all pieces of evidence i used and mentioned. You not understanding them doesnt mean I didnt.
Still badly misjudging your opponent?
If you had said “describe” instead of govern. Leave off the “absolute dominion” part. You might agree there’s a big difference.
And honestly I’m getting fatigued with your insults. Perhaps this is the last bit of humiliation for you that I mentioned earlier.
It’s definitely the last for tonight.
May God richly bless you with everything you need.
Stop obsessing over the word laws. Kepler’s laws are just the descriptive observation. the proportionality equation itself is the mechanism that dictates what matter can or can’t do, which is why i said the EQUATION is what governs matter. understand now? You said i said the mathematical Law themselves are what govern, You made a completely false assertion. do you see you were completely wrong?
Okay, too good to pass up. And believe me, I’ve been where you are. You gotta take your lump.
You yell and scream repeatedly - “YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND!” and throw in a few childish insults. Then comes the moment when the realization hits you - you’re the one who doesn’t understand.
I explained several times that mathematical objects don’t DO anything. So when you say that an EQUATION governs matter, you are making a false statement. I gave you a hint when I asked the question - where do you think mathematics comes from? Who first wrote those equations? The equations HAVE NO POWERS, OR INFLUENCE, OR FORCE, OR GOVERNANCE - NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING! ABSTRACT OBJECTS! You said it yourself, in your arguments! My very first criticism was that your arguments were incoherent. You contradict yourself on this matter.
God has the dominion, and the power, and the forces, and the laws, and the equations. By the power of Jesus all things consist and hold together.
Mathematics just describes God’s dominion.
That’s it - I’m looking at 5 hours sleep.
I built something beyond your comprehension, this is CRYSTAL CLEAR. I suggest you go look up on your own time every piece of eveidence I gave you so you inform yourself and understand things you clearly just admitted you know nothing about. I build and conceptualize things that make the entire universe look like a grain of sand. Me building things bigger than the multiverse would leave you completely paralysed from the neck down.
There is nothing wrong with using AI as a spell checker. But reading through your thread, the responses from these old “spiritual Joe’s”, men advanced in years but with precious little Scripture in sight, and the three of you taking turns throwing sarcasm at one another, with pride coming through loud and clear, makes for quite an “interesting read”, to put it mildly.
My 2 cents.
J.
In building an argument to prove God exist, You saying I must use Scripture(apply in most cases to christians), Whom am i building this argument Proving God exist for? A non believer that I’m inviting to have a relationship with God or plant a seed or a christian who already believes in God? Did you think before you said what you just said before saying it?
@kv100 First, attacking people and attempting to call them ignorant of your obviously ignorant post is ridiculous. Allow me and others to educate you. Your argument relies on a string of conceptual leaps, rhetorical inflation, and misapplications of physics and probability.
Here is a clear breakdown of where those claims break down scientifically and logically.
Reifying Mathematical Laws as “Immaterial Governors”: You claim: Mathematical laws are immaterial, prescriptive entities that “govern” physical matter with “absolute dominion.” The reality: Equations like Newton’s Law of Gravitation (F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}) or Kepler’s Third Law are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are human language and models built to describe how matter and energy consistently behave. Gravity isn’t obeying a line of code floating in space; the equation describes an intrinsic property of mass curving spacetime (as detailed in General Relativity).
Misusing Probability and the “1 in $10^{50}” Rule: You claim: Celestial parameters are fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^{40}, and in probability theory, anything over 1 in 10^{50} is “mathematically categorized as a zero-probability event.” The reality: No such universal law exists in probability theory stating that events with a probability smaller than 1 in 10^{50} cannot happen. Rare events happen continuously when the sample space is vast. Retrospective Probability Fallacy: Calculating the post-hoc probability of a specific outcome that has already occurred is a classic statistical trap. Shuffle a standard 52-card deck: the probability of getting that exact sequence is 1 in 52! (roughly 1 in 8 \times 10^{67}), which is far smaller than 10^{50}. Yet some order must appear every time you deal the cards. Orbital parameters (like Earth’s eccentricity or the Moon’s mass) are dynamic, historical outcomes of physical accretion and gravitational interaction over billions of years, not fine-tuned dials set in advance.
Misinterpreting Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: You claim: The Second Law (dS \ge 0) means blind energy can’t form complex, low-entropy systems like orbital resonances without an external agent.The reality: Open vs. Isolated Systems: The Second Law dictates that entropy increases in a closed/isolated system as a whole. Localized order can, and routinely does, emerge spontaneously when energy flows through open systems, driven by gravity and fundamental forces.Orbital Resonances: The 1:2:4 Laplace resonance of Jupiter’s moons (Io, Europa, Ganymede) is not a “low-entropy computational engine” built out of chaos; it is an automatic, predictable outcome of tidal dissipation and energy exchange over millions of years.
Gravity naturally draws multi-body systems into stable orbital locks over time because those configurations minimize energy loss.
Equating Physical Rules with Software Code: You claim: Because the cosmos exhibits systemic rules, it is an “informational architecture” or “code,” and code inherently requires a programmer. The reality: This is a false equivalence. Computer code consists of symbolic instructions created by humans to run on hardware. Natural laws are physical regularities inherent to the interaction of matter, fields, and forces. Calling physics “code” or a “blueprint” is a metaphor, and using that metaphor to claim a literal programmer exists is a circular argument.
AI text generators often produce persuasive, authoritative-sounding text by blending technical jargon with philosophical rhetoric. However, mathematically and physically, the passage relies on misdefining descriptive physical laws as literal software rules and misrepresenting fundamental physics.
Now, having said all that, am I arguing there is no God? No, of course not.
Continued.
Instead, I strictly address whether this specific argument works from a scientific and logical standpoint. In theology and philosophy, there is a clear distinction between two things. Believing that a transcendent Creator exists. (Many world-class physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers hold this view.) Using specific physics arguments, like calling gravity “software code” or misapplying thermodynamic entropy, to try to mathematically prove it.
My breakdown simply points out that your scientific premises are faulty. Science cannot disprove a Creator, because a transcendent Creator exists outside the scope of empirical measurement and testing. Science also cannot be forced into bad logic, such as claiming that natural processes like gravitational resonances violate the laws of physics when they don’t.
Many theologians and religious scientists actively reject arguments like the one you posted because they rely on “God of the Gaps” reasoning. The idea that if we point to a physical process and label it “too complex” or “statistically impossible,” it proves divine intervention. Historically, as science comes to understand the actual physics (like how tidal forces naturally create orbital resonances), those arguments collapse.
If someone wants to argue for a Creator, they need to do so on valid philosophical, metaphysical, or personal grounds, because this specific physics argument is built on BS. Bad science.
Let’s knock off the “ad hominem” attacks, and maybe you can learn something.
Be blessed. Be a blessing.
Peter
First saying I attacked people when stones where thrown first at me. Take the speck out of your eye. Again this AI accusation. AI can’t prove God exist. Have you even tested it, cause I have and it fails all the time, It just end up admiting that it cant meet the standard of proof or creates something that’s ilogical and incoherent. As to you trying to dismantle my argument, You not comprehending my argument at all. You asserting i’m doing things in my argument that I’m not even doing. Notice something as well, I never requested that my argument to be dismantled or is in itself beyond dispute, yet your initial response was to dismantle it YOUR MOTIVES ARE MALICIOUS AND EVIDENT. Stop being the hypocrite that you are.
Sir, YOU ARE COMPLETELY TOXIC AND MALICIOUS, I EXPERIENCED YOU COMMENTING TO ME EVEN ON MY OTHER POST. CAN YOU JUST NEVER RESPOND TO ANY OF MY POST EVER AGAIN PLEASE..
Just calm down a notch or two, @kv100. Never react, always respond. Scripture says, “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” James 1:20, and Proverbs 15:1 reminds us, “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.”
And by the way, there is nothing inherently wrong with making good use of AI as a tool. I use it, and I suspect many others here do as well, although they may not be quite as forthcoming about it.
But for now, brother, I think you need to take a little break. Have a coffee, take a walk, pray to our Lord Jesus Christ, and allow the Holy Spirit to lead and guide you. As Paul reminds us, “Let all your things be done with charity” 1 Corinthians 16:14.
Sometimes the wisest thing we can do in the middle of an argument is step away for a while and let the dust settle.
Shalom.
J.
@kv100
You said
Yes, I admit that you posted something beyond my comprehension, including the word “comprension”. I seriously doubt that you “built” it, that you wrote it, or that you even typed it, but my personal suspicions are not “in the dock” here.
I’m not ashamed that I cannot “bench the universe”, whatever that euphemism means to you, or whatever it was intended to convey. I make no claim to that ability.
I am not a user of Large Language model AI, but I did spend my career in IT, and can usually spot evidence of an artificial intelligence author. In your case, the precise vocabulary and tone of your post uses dense, sophisticated, philosophical buzzwords, carefully arranged in a highly-polished cadence, one that is typical of modern large language models. It is “pleasant” reading, similar to professionally edited pieces; nice flow, perfect grammar, no misspellings, perfect capitalization, etc.; it’s too pleasant to pass as a public forum post. Also, using the math formatting called “LaTeX”, your mathematical equations are formatted precisely to the default way AI tools express formulas. Lastly, your post follows a classic AI pattern, one that states a primary premise with very high-confidence, lists apologetic attributes in sets of 3 or 4, and immediate draws a teleological conclusion. I have little doubt you did not write it.
It’s true, I do not understand what you wrote, I highly suspect you don’t either, but I admit, I don’t know you very well. I tried to get to know you in other posts, but didn’t get very far. These new posts supply much more data for me to understand you. Sincerely, if you told me more personal details about yourself, like what medications have been prescribed for you, I would probably understand you even better. The way you have interacted with the others on this forum also tells me very much about you, and about your probable motivations.
I’m sorry this has become confrontational, and upsetting for you. That was not my intention. I am a simple guy trying to offer simple help where I can. I really think you could have simply written your theories out in your own words and your ideas would have been warmly received, but that is just an unsolicited opinion of a simple man, a weak-minded saint who lifts pink dumbbells and calls it exercise.
I can see that any help you may need, I am not equipped to be that source.
Grace & Peace
KP
So Peter since you don’t want to leave me alone, let me respond to you, let’s address your attempt to sound authoritative by dismantling your entire commentary point by point.
First, your frantic objection to reifying mathematical laws as “immaterial governors” completely collapses under basic physics and philosophy. Equations like Newton’s Law of Gravitation or General Relativity’s field equations are not merely passive human diary entries; they describe real, invariant structural constraints of spacetime. When you claim gravity is just a human language model built to describe how matter behaves, you commit a category error: you confuse our epistemic description of a phenomenon with its ontological reality. Mass genuinely curves spacetime according to a precise mathematical ratio, regardless of whether a human is around to write it down. Calling it a “description” doesn’t magically strip it of its prescriptive regularity; it just tries to sweep the fundamental uniformity of nature under the rug with semantic hand-waving.
Second, your dismissal of probability and the 1050 threshold exposes a deep confusion between sample spaces and fine-tuning. While it is true that you can calculate a post-hoc probability for any single historical outcome (like shuffling a deck of cards into a specific order), that completely misses the point of thermodynamic and cosmological fine-tuning arguments. The issue isn’t that some set of physical constants happened to roll out; the issue is that the habitable window for life-permitting universes is infinitesimally narrow against the total possible configuration space of physical parameters. Shuffling a deck yields a card order, but if every single card had to be an exact specific suit just to prevent the deck from instantly incinerating itself, pointing at the cards and saying “well, some order has to appear” is mathematically bankrupt.
Third, your invocation of open systems and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to wave away complexity is textbook freshman-level hand-waving. Yes, entropy can decrease locally in an open system if energy flows through it—at the strict expense of accelerating total entropy in the wider universe. But energy flow alone does not magically generate specified functional complexity; it only drives thermodynamic dissipation. A hurricane is an open system driven by thermal energy, but it destroys structures rather than building complex, multi-body orbital resonances or biological information systems. Pointing to Jupiter’s Laplace resonance as an “automatic, predictable outcome of tidal dissipation” merely describes how the system settled into that state over time; it completely fails to explain why the underlying gravitational constants, masses, and initial parameters were so exquisitely balanced to allow stable, multi-body resonance locks to form instead of chaotic ejection or immediate collision.
Fourth, your rejection of the informational architecture analogy as a “false equivalence” falls flat because you misunderstand the nature of information. You claim computer code is symbolic instructions created by humans to run on hardware, while natural laws are just “intrinsic regularities.” But DNA contains a literal four-letter digital alphabet carrying algorithmic instructions for protein synthesis, and the cosmos operates on algorithmic regularities that process physical states. Dismissing this as a “metaphor” is a lazy dodge. If a system exhibits complex, non-arbitrary, algorithmic processing that yields functional outcomes, calling it anything else is just linguistic denial.
Finally, your retreat into “God of the Gaps” rhetoric doesn’t save your argument. You try to insulate your position by claiming science can never disprove a Creator because a transcendent Creator exists outside empirical measurement. Yet, in the same breath, you try to use reductionist materialist processes to explain away the very fine-tuning and structural information that point toward that Creator in the first place. You cannot simultaneously cordon off theology as “outside science” while aggressively using bad physics to attack teleological arguments. If you want to critique an argument, you actually have to address its premises instead of hiding behind standard materialist dogma and calling everyone else ignorant.
Are you gonna double down and accuse me of using AI again or are you gonna admit I just showed you failed dismally trying to dismantle my argument? Also I asked for contributions and you decided to be destructive.
the thing is, i never asked to be attacked or dismantle, I just want contribution and conversation.
the thing is i dont know how to format equations on word document when typing. Let me explain my argument in 2-3 sentences. in the 4 paragrahs I was using evidence to show how existence was necessary to exist, Therefore that is why it was necessary for a creator to exist becasue he was necessary to create the existence that was necessary to exist. Do you understand? If you would like me to explain deeper let me know. I never asked anyone to try to dismantle my argument i asked people to contribute, I don’t know why people are trying to dismantle it at all.I think people didnt read my title for my post.