You are using two different definitions of "necessary", not defining "ultimate", assuming your rationale by intuition, and eventually defining God as the answer.
In short, this argument doesn't show an externally defined God to be the logical conclusion reached by analysis. Instead, it premises the entire logical set-up and equates "god" with the incredibly ambiguous result.
You are saying "god = necessary existence". Not, "necessary existence proves the existence of an omnibenevolent (insert adjectives here) conscious entity". You may as well say God is a cupcake, cupcakes exist, ergo the guy discussed in the bible exists too.
In short, this argument doesn't show an externally defined God to be the logical conclusion reached by analysis. Instead, it premises the entire logical set-up and equates "god" with the incredibly ambiguous result.
You are saying "god = necessary existence". Not, "necessary existence proves the existence of an omnibenevolent (insert adjectives here) conscious entity". You may as well say God is a cupcake, cupcakes exist, ergo the guy discussed in the bible exists too.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate by the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
- Dennis the peasant.
- Dennis the peasant.
