First of all, if logic worked like incantatory magic, so that Alvin Plantinga could conjure a God into existence by arranging a clever syllogism, the planets and Sun would orbit the Earth in perfect circles. Second, you define a "Necessary Being" as one that must exist in all possible worlds. If there is more than one conceivable type of Necessary Being, but only one can exist in all possible worlds, then the concept is self-contradictory if by "Being" you mean a person.
Is the Necessary Being a male with threefold Personhood (Yahweh-Jesus-Holy Spirit), or male and singular (Allah, Judaism!Yahweh)? Is the Necessary Being female with a threefold Personhood (the Triple Goddess of the Wiccans), or female and singular (Atana Potnia)? Does the Necessary Being predestine some to salvation and others to perdition (Calvinist!Yahweh) or grant humans free will (Arminian!Yahweh)? Is it a One, True God (the Abrahamic monotheisms), does it manifest itself as hundreds of gods and goddesses (Brahman), or did it create gods and goddesses different from itself (Atum)? Etc., etc., and so forth.
Since there's an endless array of proposed Necessary Beings, each as likely as the others, there is no way to identify a single one as "the" Being that is Necessary in all possible worlds. Any sort of personal being is, by definition, one of many possibilities, i.e. it is this person, with these values, personality attributes, etc., rather than someone else. So, a Necessary Being cannot be a person.
Now, maybe you could argue for something along the lines of "Being-as-such" being Necessary--not a being, like a god or goddess, but the state of Being. In order to meet the standard of "Necessary in all possible worlds" this sort of Being would have to be so basic and fundamental, so metaphysically simple and undifferentiated that it would underlie all beings in all possible worlds without having any individual personhood of its own. It would be more akin to "the Tao," "the grand unified field" or "the spacetime manifold" than anything anyone could worship. But then, this wouldn't serve Plantinga's purpose, would it?
Is the Necessary Being a male with threefold Personhood (Yahweh-Jesus-Holy Spirit), or male and singular (Allah, Judaism!Yahweh)? Is the Necessary Being female with a threefold Personhood (the Triple Goddess of the Wiccans), or female and singular (Atana Potnia)? Does the Necessary Being predestine some to salvation and others to perdition (Calvinist!Yahweh) or grant humans free will (Arminian!Yahweh)? Is it a One, True God (the Abrahamic monotheisms), does it manifest itself as hundreds of gods and goddesses (Brahman), or did it create gods and goddesses different from itself (Atum)? Etc., etc., and so forth.
Since there's an endless array of proposed Necessary Beings, each as likely as the others, there is no way to identify a single one as "the" Being that is Necessary in all possible worlds. Any sort of personal being is, by definition, one of many possibilities, i.e. it is this person, with these values, personality attributes, etc., rather than someone else. So, a Necessary Being cannot be a person.
Now, maybe you could argue for something along the lines of "Being-as-such" being Necessary--not a being, like a god or goddess, but the state of Being. In order to meet the standard of "Necessary in all possible worlds" this sort of Being would have to be so basic and fundamental, so metaphysically simple and undifferentiated that it would underlie all beings in all possible worlds without having any individual personhood of its own. It would be more akin to "the Tao," "the grand unified field" or "the spacetime manifold" than anything anyone could worship. But then, this wouldn't serve Plantinga's purpose, would it?
![Wink Wink](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/wink.gif)