ARGUMENTS FOR MONOTHEISM 1812 (Possibly, something has logically necessary existence). So:
3 (Something has logically necessary existence.)
The reasoning here is simple: 1 and 1 are necessary truths. Premises 2
and 2, being modal claims, are either necessarily false or necessarily
true. Neither 2 nor 2 is necessarily false. So 2 and 2 are necessarily
true. The inferences 1 and 2, hence 3 and 1 and 2, hence 3 are
obviously valid. Hence conclusions 3 and 3, being entailed by necessary
truths, are themselves necessary truths. Something has logically
necessary existence.
If the ontological argument is sound and valid, then this argument must
be sound and valid; its soundness and validity are a necessary, but not a
sufficient, condition of the soundness and validity of the Ontological
Argument. The simple argument is powerful; perhaps it is a proof that
extends our knowledge. But even if this is so, the Ontological Argument
itself is not a proof that extends our knowledge.
Empirical proofs, argument strategies, and
principles of sufficient reason^11
In contrast to a purely conceptual proof of God’s existence, an empirical
proof of God’s existence is an argument that is valid, has at least one
logically contingent truth among its premises, has only true premises, and
has God exists as its conclusion. Such a proof that extends our knowledge –
which of course is what is sought – will satisfy the other conditions noted
above. There are various starting points for such arguments, and various
strategies for going on from the beginning. For example, one might begin
with the fact that there is a universe, though it is logically possible that
there might not have been, or that there is some particular thing (say,
oneself), though it is logically possible that there may not have been that
particular thing, or the fact that the universe is intelligible (science is
possible), though it is logically possible that there be a universe that is not
intelligible. Suppose one begins with the fact that there is a universe,
though it is logically possible that there may not have been. Then there are
at least these strategies for continuing.
1 The everlasting world strategy: prove that the world is everlasting
and dependent, then infer to a necessarily independent being on
which the dependent everlasting world depends.
2 The world-has-a-beginning strategy: prove that the world is not
everlasting past, then infer to a cause of the world beginning to exist.