It can point to God but it can’t “prove” God exists like it can “prove” certain things about the natural world via equations/observations. At the same time it can’t “disprove” God either.
I do think that a kind of “symmetrical” proof for God’s existence can be had.
If we start from the concept of “necessary being,” we can draw an either/or inference from that concept alone.
Either “necessary being” is a logically consistent concept or, like square triangle, it is an incoherent idea.
It would be nonsense to say, “A necessary being is possible.” In order for the concept of “necessary being” to be a logically consistent one any necessary being would HAVE TO exist, necessarily. That is what “necessary being” essentially means. A necessary being can not not exist - it must exist, necessarily.
The only logical “out” here is to show that “necessary being” is an incoherent idea - that the idea of necessary being is logically untenable.
This is where the “symmetrical aspect” of the argument comes in.
All contingent or merely “possible” beings CAN NOT exist. Their existence is distinct from their essence. We can fully describe a unicorn in terms of its “whatness,” but leave open the question of whether it actually exists. This is true for all contingent beings. Whether they exist or not is fundamentally a different question from what they are.
The problem is that if all “beings” are contingent then none can explain why they do, in fact, exist or, for that matter, why anything exists. The explanation for their existence is not to be found in “what” they are because what they are does not sufficiently explain why they are.
In order to explain why anything exists instead of nothing, the principle of sufficient reason requires that “something” that does exist must sufficiently account for its own existence and the existence of all other contingent things that don’t explain their own existence. There must be something that “exists” necessarily as an aspect merely of what it is, otherwise the explanation of why things do, in fact, exist is left unanswered.
That “something” must be “existence itself” or the subsistent act of being itself. This is not any particular being, but Being Itself.
Since to explain the existence of anything at all requires that whatever the sufficient explanation is, it must exist necessarily of its own essence, then “necessary being” is not only a logical possibility but a logical requirement for explaining the existence of contingent beings that do not and cannot explain their own existence.
Since “necessary being” is not only logically coherent but a logical requirement by the principle of sufficient reason and since “necessary being,” by definition, can not NOT exist, therefore we have a symmetrical “proof” for the existence of “necessary being.”
From here we can move to unpack the “traits” that would be requisite for any BEING to BE necessary and at the same time have what it takes to account for all the contingent existents in the known universe.
Once we’re done, the characteristics of the God of classical theism would seem very plausible in terms of accounting for what “necessary being” would require. Omnipotence and omniscience would seem unarguably necessary aspects.
Aquinas does a remarkable job with the unpacking of what “necessary being” entails starting with “ipsum esse subsistens.”
To dismiss Aquinas as “arguing in circles” is simply a misguided and superficial treatment of his work and, perhaps, misinterpreting symmetry for circularity.
