An argument for God's existence

I am not a Theist. However, as of late, I have been finding the arguments for God's existence more and more compelling. Here is one:

1) Either God's existence is necessary or impossible.
2) God's existence is not impossible.
3) Therefore, God's existence is necessary.


I'm sure one would right away claim the first premise is a false dichotomy, but it isn't. Essentially, if God existed, he could not exist contingently, he would have to exist necessarily (that is, exist in all possible worlds). It would be a part of his nature, just as if abstract objects existed, they would also exist necessarily. If one would then want to argue God's existence is impossible to avoid the conclusion, they would have to show that the idea of God is contradictory, or at least incoherent.

Merely explaining what premise 1 means is not sufficient.
Prove the first premise before you make the rest of the argument.
I can do that.
But can you?

Merely explaining what premise 1 means is not sufficient.
Prove the first premise before you make the rest of the argument.
I can do that.
But can you?

The argument is the proof itself. It's a deductive argument. If you want me to prove the first premise, then I would have to prove the proof of the first premise, and ad infinitum. So your epistemological criterion sets up the infinite regress of justification, and thus nothing could ever be shown to be true. As I already said, God, if he exists, must exist necessarily. Therefore, his existence is either necessary or impossible. Remember, a necessary being is one that could not fail to exist. To say "x is contingent" is just to say that x could have failed to exist. I hope this is sufficient enough for you.

Merely explaining what premise 1 means is not sufficient.
Prove the first premise before you make the rest of the argument.
I can do that.
But can you?

The argument is the proof itself [of the first premise].

I don't believe that is true.
Can you explain why you believe it is?

Why is God's existence either necessary or impossible?

Merely explaining what premise 1 means is not sufficient.
Prove the first premise before you make the rest of the argument.
I can do that.
But can you?

The argument is the proof itself [of the first premise].

I don't believe that is true.
Can you explain why you believe it is?

Why is God's existence either necessary or impossible?

1) If the premises of a deductive argument are true, and the conclusion follows, then the conclusion is true.

2) God's existence is either necessary or impossible because God cannot be a contingent being. God, if he exists, cannot fail to exist (or else he wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being which he is supposed to be). That is the meaning of necessity. Now, if God could fail to exist, then he would be a contingent being. Therefore, God cannot be a contingent being. Thus, since God cannot be contingent (possibly existing or possibly not existing) he must either exist necessarily or it is impossible for him to exist.

Why is God's existence either necessary or impossible?

1) If the premises of a deductive argument are true, and the conclusion follows, then the conclusion is true.

That part is obvious, but isn't the question.

2) God's existence is either necessary or impossible because God cannot be a contingent being.

Isn't that what is to be proven?
What is the proof/explanation for that assertion?

God, if he exists, cannot fail to exist (or else he wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being which he is supposed to be).

Now you are getting a little closer.
You have now DEFINED "God" to be (in part) "the greatest conceivable being".
The trick from there is to show the necessary properties of "the greatest conceivable being".
That isn't so easy to prove.

Hi Bradley.

Just because you claim it is not a false dichotomy does not mean it is'nt one.
You pick two extremes and then force us to choose one while neither of the extremes has any truth.
So you are rigging the game!
There are to many variables possible,some entity might exist that we would identify as a god, without being necessary.

For instance, change the word necessary to not necessary, and use possible instead of imposible, and what do you get?

Besides, this discussion is already going on at a few different threads.

Regards, John.

Hi Bradley.

Just because you claim it is not a false dichotomy does not mean it is'nt one.
You pick two extremes and then force us to choose one while neither of the extremes has any truth.
So you are rigging the game!
There are to many variables possible,some entity might exist that we would identify as a god, without being necessary.

For instance, change the word necessary to not necessary, and use possible instead of imposible, and what do you get?

Besides, this discussion is already going on at a few different threads.

Regards, John.

Well I tried to explain why it is not a false dichotomy. I'll give it another try. God could either exist necessarily or contingently (and the third option would be that it is impossible for him to exist). But I explained that if God exists, then he would have to exist necessarily (meaning he cannot fail to exist). Of course, that is contradictory with being contingent, since, to be contingent is to possibly exist or possibly not exist (which would mean he could in fact fail to exist), whereas to be necessary is not compatible with 'possibly not existing'. So, we see that the options are now reduced to either God's existence being necessary or impossible, making the dichotomy a true one.

-- Updated February 25th, 2012, 6:52 pm to add the following --

2) God's existence is either necessary or impossible because God cannot be a contingent being.

Isn't that what is to be proven?
What is the proof/explanation for that assertion?

God, if he exists, cannot fail to exist (or else he wouldn't be the greatest conceivable being which he is supposed to be).

Now you are getting a little closer.
You have now DEFINED "God" to be (in part) "the greatest conceivable being".
The trick from there is to show the necessary properties of "the greatest conceivable being".
That isn't so easy to prove.

Well, I technically did prove it. See, being necessary is incompatible with being contingent. For an entity x to necessarily exist means that x cannot fail to exist, whereas if that entity was merely contingent, it could fail to exist. Now, the premise is that if God exists, then he would have to exist necessarily. If this is so, he cannot be contingent. The options are then reduced to either him existing necessarily or it being impossible for him exist.

Secondly, I'm not quite sure what you're asking me to do by showing the necessary properties of this greatest conceivable being. What does this exactly mean? I think the criterion for maximal greatness is perfection. A contingent being couldn't be the greatest conceivable being since it could fail to exist, which is an imperfection. I don't think it is actually necessary to name all the properties this God would have, but we can name which properties it wouldn't have. One being possibly failing to exist. Imagine there are two entities, x and y. Now, imagine that x cannot fail to exist, whereas y can. Would you not agree that x is greater than y?

Hi Bradley.

What I see you doing here is a different version of what Pres Busch did about 10 years ago when he said " You are either with us or you are with the terrorists".
Now it is easy to see how faulty this type of thinking is by the above statement.
For many people God is nothing more than a concept, an easy metaphor for such things as "God only knows"
Now they could just as easily use a different metaphor, as a matter of fact this one would have little meaning in some places.
So for them God is not necessary, or for that matter impossible.

On Star Trek The next generation a number of programs dealt with the God idea, but with a group of Gods who lived an extremely long time, but were born and eventually would die.
It gave food for thought to see that these Gods showed a host of characteristics from positive to negative, much more in line with what the universe shows us if a God was in charge, rather then the kindly grandfather kind espoused by most religions.

Regards, John.

Hi Bradley.

What I see you doing here is a different version of what Pres Busch did about 10 years ago when he said " You are either with us or you are with the terrorists".
Now it is easy to see how faulty this type of thinking is by the above statement.
For many people God is nothing more than a concept, an easy metaphor for such things as "God only knows"
Now they could just as easily use a different metaphor, as a matter of fact this one would have little meaning in some places.
So for them God is not necessary, or for that matter impossible.

On Star Trek The next generation a number of programs dealt with the God idea, but with a group of Gods who lived an extremely long time, but were born and eventually would die.
It gave food for thought to see that these Gods showed a host of characteristics from positive to negative, much more in line with what the universe shows us if a God was in charge, rather then the kindly grandfather kind espoused by most religions.

Regards, John.

It's not similar to your example since mine is not a false dichotomy, as I've already shown. One more time:

(1) God is the greatest conceivable being (note that to say God is the greatest conceivable being is just to say he is maximally great, and there cannot be any being greater than him).
(2) The greatest conceivable being exists in all possible worlds.

Now, we know that if a being (any being, maybe a number or an equation, etc.) exists in all possible worlds, it exists necessarily. Thus, if God exists, he exists necessarily (from (2)). Subsequently, since God would exist necessarily, the only other option is it being impossible for him to exist. The only third option would be that he exists contingently, but this could not be the case (from (2)). Therefore, God exists either necessarily or it is impossible for him to exist.

I hope this suffices.

Well, I technically did prove it.

No, technically, you haven't.

See, being necessary is incompatible with being contingent.

Granted, but not in contention.

The options are then reduced to either him existing necessarily or it being impossible for him exist.

That can only be stated AFTER you prove that God is necessarily non-contingent.
You provided a partial definition of God == "the greatest conceivable being".
But now who says that "the greatest conceivable being" is non-contingent?
And beyond that, I can conceive of a unicorn. But that doesn't mean that a unicorn exists.
What if "the greatest conceivable being" is one that simply doesn't exist?

I think the criterion for maximal greatness is perfection.

The word "perfection" doesn't help.
"Perfect" means that something exactly matches something else.
One could ask, "perfect for what purpose?"

A "god" is a category description for any entities that have specific abilities.
It is the ability of an entity that makes it a god.

-- Updated Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:13 am to add the following --

(2) The greatest conceivable being exists in all possible worlds.

That can't be a premise else you have merely defined God as the greatest thing that exists.
You would have presumed your conclusion.
That doesn't constitute a logical proof, but merely a definition.

And actually, you really have to get into what it really means to "exist".

Well, I technically did prove it.

No, technically, you haven't.

See, being necessary is incompatible with being contingent.

Granted, but not in contention.

The options are then reduced to either him existing necessarily or it being impossible for him exist.

That can only be stated AFTER you prove that God is necessarily non-contingent.
You provided a partial definition of God == "the greatest conceivable being".
But now who says that "the greatest conceivable being" is non-contingent?
And beyond that, I can conceive of a unicorn. But that doesn't mean that a unicorn exists.
What if "the greatest conceivable being" is one that simply doesn't exist?

I think the criterion for maximal greatness is perfection.

The word "perfection" doesn't help.
"Perfect" means that something exactly matches something else.
One could ask, "perfect for what purpose?"

A "god" is a category description for any entities that have specific abilities.
It is the ability of an entity that makes it a god.

You are contradicting yourself now. First you ask me to "prove" my assertion that if God exists, he exists necessarily. And then when I say that being necessary is compatible with being contingent, you reply by saying "Granted, but not in contention". Then you go on to say "what if the greatest conceivable being is one that simple does exist?" I think I'm done with this post. I continually have to repeat myself as if you're not even reading my full post.

You are contradicting yourself now.

I don't believe that I am.

First you ask me to "prove" my assertion that if God exists, he exists necessarily.

I don't believe that I ever said that. You are reading "words into my mouth".

And then when I say that being necessary is [not] compatible with being contingent, you reply by saying "Granted, but not in contention".

And I still say that, but realize that by "not in contention", I meant that "I am not arguing with that". Sorry for my choice of using the same word "contention" if that caused confusion.

Then you go on to say "what if the greatest conceivable being is one that simple does [not] exist?" I think I'm done with this post. I continually have to repeat myself as if you're not even reading my full post.

Yes, I have read every word.
I suspect that you are misreading/misunderstanding what I am saying due to injecting meanings that I didn't say or intend.

I have been looking for a black and white argument. Something glaringly obvious that all would say, "yes of course".

You are contradicting yourself now.

I don't believe that I am.

First you ask me to "prove" my assertion that if God exists, he exists necessarily.

I don't believe that I ever said that. You are reading "words into my mouth".

Please go back to your post #6 and see where you wrote, "Isn't that what is to be proven? What is the proof/explanation for that assertion?" in response to "God's existence is either necessary or impossible because God cannot be a contingent being."