The Third (tertius) Volitional Argument for the Existence of God
How can the fact that we have a will—that is, our volition which is more like the act to exercise our will—point to the existence of God? And what does volition reveal about the basis and existence for both material and immaterial realities? That’s what we’ll explore in this talk, and the final conclusion might surprise you.
So, let’s explore The Volitional Argument for the Existence of God How does the concept of volition (or will) support the existence of God? We will explore the Role of Volition in both the Existence of Material and Immaterial Realities Volition is central to the argument. What then is the definition? Volition (or will) involves intention and commitment to action Here then is the thesis statement and foundation for the Third Volitional Argument: Volition is essential for bringing both material and immaterial entities into existence.
Every immaterial concept originates from nothing and becomes a reality through a thought process shaped in a mind. This thought must be followed by the will (volition) to actualize it. Stories, music, art, and business plans, creative thoughts are all creations of the mind. That is, immaterial creations from nothing – ex nihilo. These concepts exist, and therefore, minds exist. And without minds these would not exist.
Can we then infer that also for material objects to come into existence from nothing, a thought or concept is required, followed by the will, or volition, to actualize it, that is, to create matter from nothing? Thoughts and volition exist only within minds. I think it is plausible that for something to come from nothing you need a mind. Humans cannot create material objects from nothing; nothing in the material world can. The Kalam Cosmological Argument points to God as the only plausible cause for the beginning of the universe, when the material world was created from nothing.
Matter exists; therefore, God exists.
But let us not jump to conclusions as yet.
The Third Volitional Argument suggests that volition is essential for bringing both material and immaterial entities into existence. This process begins with an inspired moment of a creative concept, which is then shaped by thoughts within the mind. For this concept or thought to be realized, it must be followed by the will (volition) to bring it into actuality.
Let us pull this apart Volition, or will, is the cognitive, or thinking process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action. It would include affect (that feeling or emotion) and motivation (that is goals or expectations). Applying the concept of volition to the arguments for the existence of God there are at least two existing versions that we need to consider and have a quick look at before we can present the current or third argument, these two are: 1. The (First) Volitional Argument for God and 2. The Neo-Volitional Argument for God. These are both philosophical arguments that have been developed to argue the existence of God based on volition or will.
- The original version of The Volitional Argument for God – from1896. – also known as the ‘Will to Believe’ Argument, suggests that belief in God is not solely based on evidence or rational argumentation, but also on personal choice and inclination. Inspired by William James, this argument emphasizes that humans naturally desire to believe in a higher power, and this inclination can be sufficient grounds for accepting God’s existence. Proponents argue that belief in God offers meaning, purpose, and moral guidance, making it rational to choose belief even without conclusive evidence. Critics, however, question the validity of basing belief on desire alone, citing potential biases and subjectivity. William James’ influential essay “The Will to Believe” introduced this argument, asserting that belief in God can be justified based on personal experience and needs, rather than strict evidence or logic, sparking ongoing debate in the philosophy of religion. However, I believe a quote from CS Lewis underscores this belief. In his book Mere Christianity, he discusses how human desires suggest the existence of what they long for. “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” Lewis uses this argument to suggest that our longing for something beyond what we find in this life implies the existence of a transcendent reality, which he argues is God and Heaven.
- A more recent version is The Neo-Volitional Argument for the existence of God from the early 21st century. This Alternate Version is credited to philosopher Edward Feser, and also focuses on volition as a key aspect of reality to demonstrate the existence of God. It begins by acknowledging the presence of volitional agents like humans, who exhibit will and intention. These agents prompt inquiries into the reasons behind their actions, leading to the concept of an ultimate volitional agent—identified as God—whose will is the source of all purposeful actions. The argument posits that every volitional agent requires a cause, leading to the necessity of a first cause, which is considered to be God, the uncaused, self-existent initiator of all intentional behavior in the universe.
Now for a somewhat different angle to this argument. What I propose as a volitional argument for the existence of God is based two realities. The reality of material entities and immaterial entities. Material entities like chairs, trees, the universe. And immaterial entities like stories and music.
Developing the Third Volitional Argument for the Existence of God we will look at:
A. Material Entities. We consider two principles, two observable facts:
1. Nothing material comes into existence without a cause. In philosophy and physics, the idea that something can come into existence without a core cause is often discussed in the context of quantum mechanics and certain cosmological models. However, whether these examples truly represent uncaused events is a matter of debate. In the realm of classical physics, and our experience of day-to-day living, everything that comes into existence is thought to have a cause.
2. Nothing material comes into existence from nothing – ex nihilo. The concept of something coming into existence from nothing is highly speculative and largely theoretical. In physics, there are hypotheses such as quantum fluctuations in a vacuum that suggest particles can spontaneously appear and disappear, seemingly from nothing, due to the inherent uncertainty at the quantum level. However, these particles typically arise within a framework of pre-existing physical laws and fields, so it’s not a true creation from absolute nothingness. The concept of true creation ex nihilo—where something arises from a complete absence of any pre-existing material, energy, or governing laws—remains largely a philosophical question, with no concrete scientific evidence or examples to substantiate it. Our current knowledge urges us to accept that there is nothing material that can or has come into existence ex-nihilo apart from, as our current understanding of science points to, the universe at the moment of the initial singularity – the Big Bang.
Summary: For material entities to come into existence it 1. needs a cause and 2. cannot come into existence ex-nihilo – out of nothing. Except for the moment of the initial singularity that needs an explanation i.e., creation
B. Immaterial Entities.
What about immaterial entities, like art, music, stories, or business plans?
1. Can come into existence from nothing. Can these come into existence ex nihilo? Certainly. Think about this, before the person who was going to write the story or the music, the person existed, the story or music did not exist – there was nothing. So it can come into existence from nothing, but can it come into existence without a cause?
2. Cannot come into existence without a cause. Nothing immaterial can come into existence without a cause. Even in situations where an idea or piece of art seems to appear spontaneously, it is still processed by the mind of a creator influenced by various factors. Thus, while these immaterial entities might feel “spontaneous,” they are generally not seen as uncaused. The act of creation involves the initial mental conception (creative spark if you will) of a story or melody ex nihilo. The creator’s thoughts and imagination serve as the cause, shaping and forming this initial creative concept into a reality in the mind. Creative people can testify to this process.
The story or melody did not exist prior to the creative moment, yet the building blocks and mental faculties required to conceive and process them did exist as the cause. This process begins with an inspired moment of a creative concept, which is then shaped by thoughts within the mind. For this concept or thought to be realized, it must be followed by the will (volition) to bring it into actuality. Human minds are entities that can create immaterial forms.
Summary: For immaterial entities to come into existence it 1. needs a cause and 2. But it can come into existence ex-nihilo – out of nothing i.e., been created
Humans cannot create material objects; therefore, for material objects, is a non-human mind necessary to form the idea, and will it? If it is postulated that a mind is necessary to create material objects, but a human mind cannot, what kind of mind then? Given the arguments presented, God is the only plausible explanation for a mind capable of creating material objects. Furthermore, this argument posits that both humans and God possess minds that can create, as evidenced by the ability of minds to create immaterial entities. Humans, created in the image of God, share some attributes with God, such as intelligence, creativity, volition, and the ability to create immaterial entities. However, God, being transcendent and existing outside the material world—just as humans exist outside the immaterial worlds they create—one could infer that God possesses the ability to create material entities ex nihilo. God as the cause of the universe is argued in the Kalam Cosmological.
Therefore, the argument will conclude that since both humans and God possess minds with the necessary attributes to bring something into existence from nothing, in other words to create, and since the material world exists, and human minds cannot create material from nothing, it follows that God exists as the necessary cause for the existence of the material world.
In summary, the Third Volitional Argument for God asserts that the existence of God can be inferred from the human capacity of volition, coupled with the necessity of a volitional agent to bring about the existence of both immaterial and material entities from nothing.
Human Creative Thoughts
Before we look at the formal structure of the argument, we have to consider the concept of ‘human creative thoughts’ as it is central to the argument. Original creative thoughts often seem to emerge spontaneously, appearing as sudden flashes of inspiration or insight that feel distinct from ordinary thinking. These initial sparks arise seemingly from “nowhere,” arriving as whole, surprising concepts rather than pieced-together ideas. Neuroscience links this phenomenon to the brain’s default mode network (DMN), which activates when we’re relaxed or not focused on a specific task. The DMN fosters free association across brain regions, allowing unusual connections to form—especially when the mind is at rest, like during a walk or just before sleep. This spontaneous creativity differs from the analytical thinking that follows. The brain’s executive control network, responsible for deliberate thought, becomes engaged once the initial spark occurs, helping us to explore, refine, and understand the new idea. The transition from the DMN’s unrestrained association to focused processing allows us to build upon the original spark and develop it fully. While the initial creative spark is marked by spontaneity and feels unique, it is often just the beginning. It serves as a guiding light that the conscious mind then shapes into a more coherent, developed form, blending inspiration with structured thought.
The sudden appearance of a fully formed symphony, story, or complex concept is a rare but intriguing phenomenon often described by highly creative individuals. Unlike smaller flashes of inspiration, these “complete” creative sparks seem to arrive all at once, as if a whole, intricate idea manifests instantly. This phenomenon, sometimes called a “flash of inspiration,” suggests something beyond what the default mode network (DMN) alone can explain. It feels more profound than a fleeting thought and appears to bypass typical conscious planning. Although neuroscientific explanations remain speculative, these creative moments differ fundamentally from the analytical processes that follow. Ultimately, while we lack a full understanding of where these initial sparks arise, it’s evident that they represent a unique and powerful aspect of creativity, distinct from the thought processes used to develop them. I believe all human creative activity is inspired by the Creator.
The formal structure of the argument:
The Third Volitional Argument for the Existence of God
A. Argument on the Existence of Immaterial Concepts and Minds:
- Every immaterial concept originates from nothing, ex-nihilo, and becomes a reality by a thought process in a mind with the steps: creative concept/thought process/reality
- But for an immaterial concept to be actualized, to become a reality, it must be followed by a will (volition). Thus, the steps are actually creative concept/thought process/volition/reality
Stories, music, art, and business plans are all examples of immaterial concepts created by the mind. Without minds these concepts would not exist.
- The mind must be outside the created immaterial concept – someone in the story cannot create the story as the story is immaterial and the person in the story is not real
- Thus, these immaterial concepts exist because minds exist.
Conclusion 1: The creative idea or creative concept (creative spark) becomes a thought process and by will/volition becomes an actuality. Therefore, Immaterial concepts exist because creative volitional minds exist.
The second part of the argument is
B. The Argument on the Existence of Material Objects and God:
5. For material objects to come into existence from nothing, ex-nihilo, a creative concept and thought is needed – this is a logical inference from A. The steps are: creative concept/thought process/reality
6. This thought or concept must be followed by a will (volition) to actualize it into material form. Or in full, the steps are: creative concept/thought process/volition/reality
7. Creative concepts, thoughts and volition exist only within minds.
8. Humans cannot create material objects from nothing.
9. Nothing within the material world can create itself from nothing. (the same as that someone in the story cannot create the story as the story is immaterial and the person in the story is not real)
Conclusion 2: Therefore, an external mind (a mind outside the material world similar to the human mind outside the immaterial world) with the capacity for creative concepts, thoughts and volition, must exist to account for the material world. The Kalam Cosmological Argument argues that the universe needed an external cause and support this conclusion.
Final Conclusion: Human minds can create immaterial entities ex nihilo. The material world’s existence, coupled with the inability of human minds to create material ex nihilo, suggests therefore an external divine mind, as the volitional creator Matter (the universe) exists; therefore, God exists as a plausible necessary external mind that brought the material world into existence by His will, His volition.
Implications for Belief:
The Third Volitional Argument presents a reasoned basis for the existence of God
There is no other plausible explanation why there is something rather than nothing
This Third Volitional Argument adds to the body of arguments supporting the evidence for God’s existence.
One less reason not to believe.
One more reason to examine your heart.
Wiliam Lane Graig argues three reasons that the cause of the universe is personal
He gives three reasons for stating that the first cause reached by the Kalam Cosmological Argument is personal. 1. It is the only way to explain an effect with a beginning in time from a permanent, timeless cause. If that cause has existed permanently and is truly sufficient for its effect, then the effect should exist permanently as well. The only way to have a cause that is timeless and permanent and yet for the effect to begin to exist just a few billion years ago is if that cause is a personal agent endowed with freedom of the will, who can therefore make a choice or execute an action without any prior determining condition, something that is altogether spontaneous and new. 2. The cause of the origin of the universe must be an immaterial object that transcends time and space. Now, the only things that we know of that could possibly fill that bill would be either an abstract object, like a number of mathematical objects, that are immaterial and typically transcend time and space, or else an unembodied mind or consciousness. But here’s the rub, abstract objects are causally a feat by definition. What makes them abstract is that they have no causal effects, and therefore the cause of the universe cannot be an abstract object. That makes it very plausible. 3. The causal explanations are of two types. One would be a scientific explanation in terms of initial conditions and natural laws, the other would be a personal explanation in terms of an agent and his volitions. Now, when you think about it, an absolutely first physical state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, because there are no prior initial conditions from which one could extrapolate the first physical state by the laws of nature. And therefore, it follows that the only category of causal explanation that would apply would be a personal explanation. There is a personal agent who, by His free will, brings the universe into being. All three of these arguments coalesce beautifully to make it very probable that the cause of the universe is a personal creator endowed with freedom of the will.
To summarize: William Lane Craig argues that the cause of the universe isn’t just any mind, it’s a personal mind, capable of making choices.
- A Timeless Cause That Chose to Act: If the cause of the universe is outside of time and has always existed, why did the universe begin only a few billion years ago? Only a personal being with free will could make that choice—to decide when the universe should start. So, this cause must be a personal mind, not just a force.
- An Immaterial Cause, Not Just an Idea: The cause of the universe has to be something beyond physical matter, outside of time and space. There are only two things like this: abstract objects, like numbers, and a mind or consciousness. But abstract things, like numbers, don’t cause anything—they just exist. So, the only option left is a mind that can actually do something, meaning a mind that can choose to create.
- Only a Personal Explanation Fits: There are two types of explanations for causes: scientific and personal. Scientific explanations use natural laws and existing conditions, which didn’t exist before the universe. So, only a personal explanation—a decision made by a free agent—could explain the universe’s beginning.
This suggests that the cause of the universe must be a personal being with the will to choose, not a random or impersonal force. This leads to the idea that the universe was created by a personal God.
Wiliam Lane Graig: Is the Cause of the Universe Personal? @RFupdates 22 August 2024. Reasonable Faith Link
Follow us >>
