What do you think of this argument for God?

[Alex K]

It's an old sleight of hand which breaks the distinction between the concept of God and God itself. It's a rabbit hole of fuzzy assumptions, hidden changes of meanings of words that is difficult to untangle, quite an ingenius trap, but not an argument for the existence of anything. My take in a nutshell - If you make it part of your concept of God that it has to actually exist in a unique fashion, you mix two separate categories of things if you will, and that leads to weird logical pathologies. It's kind of like with the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. Your concept of God is set up such that it becomes inconsistent if God doesn't actually exist in the world, and as every logician and mathematician knows, starting from a contradiction, you can logically derive anything you want. In this case you can say: look if God doesn't exist I get a contradiction there, so therefore I have proven that it exists. But the contradiction comes from you begging the question, not from reality talking to you.