By the way, I am not asking whether this argument is sound or not. I just want to have it formulated in understandable terms for laymen.

From what I have been told the argument is basically saying that

If God (maximally perfect being which none greater can be conceived)exists, God necessarily exists.

Something necessarily exists only if it is logically necessary.

God is not logically necessary because something is logically necessary only if its existence follows logically from its definition, and the existence of God does not follow logically from its definition.

So, God does not exist.

Why does the definition of God by Pollack not follow logically from its definition? THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE UPON THE WHOLE ARGUMENT RESTS THAT GOD IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY.

  • The copy-and-paste left a lot of the notation messed up, so this was hard to follow, but I think your summary of the argument is accurate. It was odd to read this argument because I always took it the opposite way: that the claim "if God exists then he exists necessarily" implies that there is a form of necessity that is not logical necessity. Instead, this argument assumes that there is only logical necessity and from that refutes the claim. Commented Nov 7, 2022 at 19:53
  • Clean up the quote and post again. Note the duplicate text beginning, “Here we have taken’Px’”. Divide the long quote into readable pieces. Commented Nov 8, 2022 at 1:03
  • @David Gudeman,do you know why the existence of God doesn't follow from its definition in this argument? Commented Nov 8, 2022 at 18:36
  • @Mark Andrews,I linked to a page with the argument. Commented Nov 8, 2022 at 20:09
  • Much more accessible. Thank you. Commented Nov 8, 2022 at 21:19


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .