Agnosticism is logically incoherent (St. Anselm and Alvin Plantinga)

[hatsoff]

it comes from contingency, contingent beings might not have been and require a necessary being to exist. i dont like the possible worlds angle myself because all possible worlds suffer from this defect, they too require a necessary being in order to exist.

Why do we require an external “being” (as in, intelligent agent?) for our own existence?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why do we require an external “being” (as in, intelligent agent?) for our own existence?

the intelligent agent part comes later in the build up to G-d, let me tackle this as simply a necessary being, as this is the first argument.

the answer being that we might not have been and therefore require a cause to exist, no contingent being can cause itself to exist. thus the need for a necessary being, which goes t the end of any chain to the brute fact of existence, G-d being then that necessary being whose essence is existence or my prefered term maximal state of being.