What do you think of this argument for God?

[Mystic]

If all existence is not necessary, then they are not necessary to exist and possibly could not have existed. If things are not necessary, the question, is why do they exist?

No. You said necessary being. Don't change the subject. Show that a necessary being is at all possible.

Everything is possible.

No. I'll just stop you there. Not everything is possible.


All of this has been covered in this thread at least 10 times now. Did you just skip to the end without reading anything?

Sorry I mean to say everything that exists is possible, but not necessary.

But there has to be an existence that is necessary.

[Nonpareil]

You guys don't find it odd, that if a Necessary being is possible, then it definitely exists?

Again, only under the S5 axiom set, which has very specific areas of applicability. Under other axiom sets, this does not hold.

[Jesster]

Sorry I mean to say everything that exists is possible, but not necessary.

This is true. However, there's no reason to believe something is possible before finding any evidence for it.

But there has to be an existence that is necessary.

Things certainly exist. I don't know that it's necessary, though.

What does the existence of anything have to do with a necessary being?

[Nonpareil]

If all existence is not necessary, then they are not necessary to exist and possibly could not have existed. If things are not necessary, the question, is why do they exist?

Why not?

Everything is possible.

No.

I believe if you think about the teleological argument, then it further confirms why there must a necessary being.

Teleology is incoherent nonsense.

That is because everything requires an explanation of why it's here

Within the universe, yes.

Within the universe, it is not necessary for this cause to be a god. Outside the universe, it cannot be shown that the requirement for causality is even coherent, let alone holds.

God is necessary as well for morality which is part of reason and life.

Objective morality does not exist.

Without God, there is no morality.

Demonstrably false.

With God, there is no purpose.

And united in this void of purpose, fear, or duty, we shall, at long last, be free!

[Mystic]

Sorry I mean to say everything that exists is possible, but not necessary.

This is true. However, there's no reason to believe something is possible before finding any evidence for it.

But there has to be an existence that is necessary.

Things certainly exist. I don't know that it's necessary, though.

What does the existence of anything have to do with a necessary being?

I will explain more in the Mulla Sadra argument.

Existence defines existence. Existence is reason for existence.

Seems trivial, but this proves a lot.

It proves we are not existence but rather borrow life from existence. We depend on existence.

---

Sorry I mean to say everything that exists is possible, but not necessary.

This is true. However, there's no reason to believe something is possible before finding any evidence for it.

But there has to be an existence that is necessary.

Things certainly exist. I don't know that it's necessary, though.

What does the existence of anything have to do with a necessary being?

I will explain more in the Mulla Sadra argument.

Existence defines existence. Existence is reason for existence.

Seems trivial, but this proves a lot.

It proves we are not existence but rather borrow life from existence. We depend on existence.

[Jesster]

Existence defines existence. Existence is reason for existence.

No

[SuperSentient]

I find it odd that you consider any being necessary.

Existence is Existence. It necessarily must exist. That is a simple proof that the Necessary being is the REAL existence by which all things exist.

That is a fallacious conclusion to derive from the postulation that existence must exist. If we are to assume some logically necessary entity is required to ground all existence, then you have just undermined the assumption that existence must exist. Anything dependent upon a necessary entity can be said to be contingent upon its ability to arbitrate things to existence, but this makes the assumption that the constantly changing reality we live in now need not be necessary, so existence could not exist. 
One of two things can be brought from this:
-Existence is contingent and therefore your postulation is false.
-Existence is necessary, but existing things can be contingent, so it is all reducible to one necessary entity. This necessary entity must be God (Necessary mind).

The first one takes down your point. The second one brings us back to square one, how do we know this necessary entity is a unembodied free personal mind? How do we know that this being would have any relation to existence? You are the one pointing out that existence is necessary, so I could keep the quality of existence and logically separate it from a cognitive being.

[masterofpuppets]

The ontological argument simply defines god as the "greatest possible being" and then presupposes that this definition is equivalent to that of a deity, when it isn't. It hasn't been demonstrated what the greatest possible being is or could be. The greatest possible "being" could just be the Universe, for example. In other words, the argument fails from the first premise.

[Cyberman]

Sorry I mean to say everything that exists is possible, but not necessary.

But there has to be an existence that is necessary.

And that is pure doublethink, in the truest Orwellian sense. Two diametrically opposed statements, both simultaneously held as true.

In layman's terms, insane.

Why must there be "an existence that is necessary"? To make your argument work?

[RoadRunner79]