Have I Developed a Logical Argument for the Existence of God?

I’ve been giving this a lot of thought, and here’s the idea that I’ve come up with… (please feel free to shoot it full of holes, that’s what I’m after.)

My logical argument for the existence of God:

There is no known system which exists independently of any other system. All known systems exert an influence on other, exterior systems and, in turn, are influenced themselves by exterior systems. Because of this it can be said that any known system relies upon both itself and other exterior systems in order to provide the totality of its identity. Ergo, any known system, within itself alone, lacks sufficient information to fully identify/explain itself.

The universe can be seen as a series of systems existing within ever larger systems — from the smallest subatomic particle, to the totality of the cosmos itself. Each of these systems, because of the exterior influence of the greater system which it resides within, lacks sufficient information, within itself alone, to fully identify itself. Information from an exterior system influencing the smaller system must be obtained in order to fully identify the lesser system. I.e. — If we see the existence of a single atom as a system, in order to fully identify all that it is to be that atom, information must be taken from, for example, the molecule that atom exists within. And, to fully identify the system of the molecule, information must be taken from the environmental system the molecule is existing within — and so on.

We are then left with two choices: (A) This series of systems is infinite. (There is always a greater system) Or, (B) There exists a final system. A final system must logically be free from exterior influence, and also contain every other system in existence within itself. The final system, being free from exterior influence must then contain, within itself alone, sufficient information to fully identify itself. The final system, containing all other extant systems within itself would also contain sufficient information to fully identify each system within the totality of existence, along with containing sufficient information to fully identify itself.

Since the sum total of the final system itself plus all other systems existing within it would account for the entirety of existence, everything in existence could be said to be a part of the final system itself. Therefore, the final system itself must, logically, be sentient, as we are sentient and exist as a part of the final system. However, our own sentience is a system itself existing within a larger system and is not free of the influence of exterior systems. Therefore our own sentience lacks sufficient information to fully identify itself, and as such, the a higher system must be of a greater sentience than our own. However, if the this higher system is not the final system, then the same can be said for it. Therefore, there must be an even higher system with even greater sentience to that — and, of course, the same would hold true for any higher system to it which was not, itself, the final system. Ergo, the final system must be sentient in and of itself and also fully contain sufficient information about its own sentience so as to be able to fully identify its own sentience. The final system, in effect, must then be omniscient, as it would contain, within itself, all information within the entirety of existence.

The final system would, therefore, be indistinguishable from what we would recognize as God, and God would be the sum total of all of existence.

Of course I recognize that a legitimate criticism would be that there’s no reason to demand that a higher system to a sentient system be sentient itself in order to fully identify the lower, sentient system. And, this is true. But, I am referring to this as a logical ‘argument’ and not a logical ‘proof’. And, it seems to me to that proposing a sufficient non-sentient higher system to a lower sentient system would be non-parsimonious.  Therefore, all else being equal (as it appears, at this time, it is) the assumption must be that any higher system to a lower sentient system would more than likely have to be sentient itself in order to be sufficient.

If I was claiming this as a logical proof, I believe the above criticism would be fatal. As a logical argument, however, I believe the burden would be on the critic to provide a valid reason as to why the higher system would more likely be non-sentient.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: