Shredderbeam
Hero

1). God is a necessary being.
You are not a necessary being. The world will get along perfectly well without you. You can either exist, or not exist, and the world will continue on. God is not such a being, as will be explained a bit later.
2). God as so defined either exists or does not exist.
According to the definition provided by the first point, God either exists, or doesn't exist.
3). If God exists, he necessarily exists.
If God exists, he has to exist.
4). If God does not exist, he necessarily does not exist.
If God does not exist, he cannot exist.
5). The idea of God is not self-contradictory.
The idea of God has no contradictions in it. It is not impossible for God to exist.
6). God exists.
Since it is not impossible for God to exist, and since if God does not exist, he cannot exist, God exists.
Discuss.
________________
*EDIT* 1/25/08
________________
Following in-depth thought, I have come to the conclusion that my logic is not valid.
Its aim was to prove the existence of a God whose only attribute was existence, nothing more. However, existence is not an attribute.
Consider the elephant. It is large (relative to humans), eats vegetation, has four legs, and has ivory tusks. You all know what it is, and could probably recognize that it was an elephant from a number of attributes that it has.
Now, to say that an elephant exists is not to say that existence is an attribute of the elephant. To say that an elephant exists is to say that there are "x's" such that "x is an elephant" is true. Basically, it is to say that there are objects in the world to which the description summarized in the word "elephant" applies.
The same applies to non-existing entities. If we think of fairies, we do not deny them an attribute by saying that they do not exist. Instead, we assert that there are no instances of the concept of fairies.
Thus, my logic was incorrect, though not for the reasons that most of you were stating.
If I was unclear, I will be happy to clarify.
You are not a necessary being. The world will get along perfectly well without you. You can either exist, or not exist, and the world will continue on. God is not such a being, as will be explained a bit later.
2). God as so defined either exists or does not exist.
According to the definition provided by the first point, God either exists, or doesn't exist.
3). If God exists, he necessarily exists.
If God exists, he has to exist.
4). If God does not exist, he necessarily does not exist.
If God does not exist, he cannot exist.
5). The idea of God is not self-contradictory.
The idea of God has no contradictions in it. It is not impossible for God to exist.
6). God exists.
Since it is not impossible for God to exist, and since if God does not exist, he cannot exist, God exists.
Discuss.
________________
*EDIT* 1/25/08
________________
Following in-depth thought, I have come to the conclusion that my logic is not valid.
Its aim was to prove the existence of a God whose only attribute was existence, nothing more. However, existence is not an attribute.
Consider the elephant. It is large (relative to humans), eats vegetation, has four legs, and has ivory tusks. You all know what it is, and could probably recognize that it was an elephant from a number of attributes that it has.
Now, to say that an elephant exists is not to say that existence is an attribute of the elephant. To say that an elephant exists is to say that there are "x's" such that "x is an elephant" is true. Basically, it is to say that there are objects in the world to which the description summarized in the word "elephant" applies.
The same applies to non-existing entities. If we think of fairies, we do not deny them an attribute by saying that they do not exist. Instead, we assert that there are no instances of the concept of fairies.
Thus, my logic was incorrect, though not for the reasons that most of you were stating.
If I was unclear, I will be happy to clarify.


