My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”

[MPat]

Very good suggestion. The problem is the good old “epistemology”. How do we gain knowledge about the different aspects of “reality”? How do we decide if a certain claim is “true” or not. It is obvious that different types of claims need to substantiated in a different manner.

There are several basic aspects to be considered.

1. Claims about the physical reality.
2. Claims of abstract sciences.
3. Claims of historical nature (claims about past events).
4. Claims which fall “beyond” the observable universe. (These could be claims of paranormal nature, or claims pertaining the to religions, or maybe “new-age” type of claims).

Category 1) is simple (in principle, though not necessarily in practice). If a claim can be verified, and the verification process is successful, then the evidence is sufficient.

Category 2) is also simple. Take the axioms, the rules of inference and see if you can “reach” the suggested the claim. If the answer is yes, you have proved the claim (not just substantiated).

Category 3) is not so simple. If that claim pertains to an event which left “marks” on reality (for example a volcano erupted) then no problem. If it did not leave any observable clues then one needs to rely on testimony, if there is one. The evaluation of testimonies is problematic. The more testimonies remain, from different, opposing sides, and the more those testimonies corroborate each other, the more reliable the testimony MIGHT be. Also one needs to evaluate the authors of those testimonies. How reliable are they, based upon other writings. But let’s face it: one piece of physical evidence will beat one million testimonies.

Category 4) is a huge mess. There has never been (to my knowledge) an epistemological method offered to decide the veracity of the claims in this category. The problem has been brought up many times, and no one was able to offer an objective, repeatable epistemological method. Generally the proponents go back to “Category 3)”. Of course, it is already problematic, but in a compounded fashion. After all the proponents assert that their “claims” pertain to the present, not just to the past. So to refer to ancient texts, of unknown authors, and the like make their claims highly dubious and thus: unacceptable. Or they offer the word of some so-called “authority”. Never mind that the “authority” cannot substantiate those claims either. All they can do is use the “age-honored” brow-beating of a lousy parent: “Because I said so!!!”. No wonder they do not earn any respect, outside their own circle.

Of course in these boards, the categories 1), 2) and 3) are of little importance. It would be nice to see some headway to be made in category 4), but since no one could offer a proper epistemological method (despite the high quality of the thinkers who already tried) it is very unlikely that the present collection of the people (who are simple laymen) will make a useful suggestion.

So, in effect, you distrust History and trust Physics and Mathematics? Yet, are you sure that this reasoning will leave “Category 1” and “Category 2” intact…?

For example, among other things, the General Theory of Relativity is supported by some observations (concerning light deflection) made during a Solar eclipse. Now, General Theory of Relativity makes claims about present, and one cannot make such an observation without an actual eclipse. In other times all we have is witness testimony… Unless you count pictures - though, in principle, they are easy to modify…

Likewise, there are other experiments that, in principle, can be repeated at any time, but are practically impossible to repeat for most of us. For example, one cannot test a nuclear bomb at home (at least I hope so). Thus the facts about it are supported by historical facts. And how is one going to trust the statements concerning Physics while distrusting the historical evidence that supports them…? And someone who does take witness testimony seriously will have do do some work before dismissing it when it concerns supernatural claims.

 

[Ion]

Example of an extraordianary claim: “the gospel will be preached to all nations”
The written evidence of this claim is from a time when the christians were a handfull of people and were living as outlaws in the roman empire.
Do we have evidence about it? Absolutely yes.

 

[Tyrion]

If you could logically deduce the existence of God (say, from the Ontological Argument) and then certain characteristics of God from this, I think you develop a framework from which religious claims can be made, or at least create a conceptual environment in which religious claims are not necessarily foreign.

Except you cannot. All the attempts of “proving” God are abysmal failures. And even if they could succeed, they would only prove the existence of a “faceless, deistic” creator, and there is no “road” from that to the christian God.

Ummm I think all epistemological methods rely on a-priori or prior claims.

You probably misunderstood me. Of course nothing exists in vacuum. I only said that one does not have to a-priori accept the veracity of the claim. There was a theologian (his name eludes me) who said: “One is not supposed to seek evidence FOR God’s existence. One must accept that God exists, and then should seek evidence OF God’s existence”. In other words, discard the evidence to the contrary, and keep only the supporting evidence.

Again, I agree. I’m not saying that all religious claims are of the same verifiable or evidential degree, or even kind. I think once one accepts an authority as legitimate, the claims the authority makes can be relied upon. However - and I can only speak for Christianity - examples like the ones cited above are not tenets of the faith: you don’t have to believe them to be a faithful Catholic/Christian.

It does not matter. I am lookong for a generic framework of evidential process so that one can decide if “proposition A” about the supernatural is true or false.

 

[Ion]

**Tyrion: …It does not matter. I am lookong for a generic framework of evidential process so that one can decide if “proposition A” about the supernatural is true or false. **

But you do have such a framework:
if an event it is not repeated, then it couldnt take place or if the proof is unbeatable then of course claims of natural causes can’t be denied because phenomena can’t be studied;
if it is repeated then of course it’s a natural event and you only have to find how…

Satan is not almighty, but he has supernatural powers …

 

[edwest2]

All the investigated ones turned out to be hoaxers or genuinely mistaken. Remember the crop-circles? But you were lamenting about the lack of willingness to investigate. You were wrong, and I even told you where to turn if you wish those claims investigated. Funny (NOT!) that you missed to reflect on that hard information. I would have been very pleasantly surprised if you had honestly acknowledged your lack of knowledge, and would have said: “oops, I was mistaken”. Not this time, however.

It is a sad truth that a huge percentage of the people “wants” something “mysterious”, something “beyond” this world. I have no idea why, that would belong to the psychiatrics to explain. But the fact is there. People “crave” something extraordinary, and will happily swallow any hoax.

One real world example. In the deep South (where else?) there was small congregation and they had a true-blue “miracle” on their hands. One of the young girls was “able” to to read blindfolded, using only her fingertips. They asked Randi to investigate their “miracle”. It took about one minute for Randi to show how the girl cheated. Nothing special about it. The special was the reaction of the people. They were upset that their “miracle” was taken away from them. They WANTED to believe.

By the way, don’t think that only the religious people are that gullible. There are ample number of non-religious who can be duped equally easily. As Barnum and Bailey (allegedly) said: “A sucker is born every minute”. They could have added: “A sucker is born again every minute”.

Your statements don’t provide anything useful. I have seen something I cannot explain. I know others who clearly saw things they could not explain. The crop circles were clearly a fraud from day one. A close friend of mine had me order copies of the first two books on the subject. Complete nonsense.

None of the people I know, or myself, wanted to believe anything. We know that we saw something. Only a few friends of mine know what I saw. So, no, I wasn’t waiting for something strange to happen. No, I was not laying in bed thinking about how badly I wanted something - anything - to happen. I was having a lot of fun and living like most of my neighbors.

Pope John Paul II is one miracle away from sainthood. And most saints either performed miracles or had miracles attributed to their intercession which were carefully studied for as long as it took. The Vatican has even rejected some claims of miracles.

I’ll take the word of the Church over any guy named James Randi.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tyrion]

I have seen something I cannot explain. I know others who clearly saw things they could not explain.

No doubt. So what?

The crop circles were clearly a fraud from day one. A close friend of mine had me order copies of the first two books on the subject. Complete nonsense.

Yet, many people believed that they were of extraterrestrial origin.

Pope John Paul II is one miracle away from sainthood. And most saints either performed miracles or had miracles attributed to their intercession which were carefully studied for as long as it took. The Vatican has even rejected some claims of miracles.

Who investigated them?

I’ll take the word of the Church over any guy named James Randi.

That is your choice. There is one huge difference between those “words”. Randi has more than just a claim, he can substantiate what he says. Can the church? Nope. It is just a claim. I take the word of medical professionals over the claims of exorcists…

What you say reminds me of the words of Billy Graham. He said: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse me with facts”.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Except you cannot. All the attempts of “proving” God are abysmal failures. And even if they could succeed, they would only prove the existence of a “faceless, deistic” creator, and there is no “road” from that to the christian God.

I disagree. I think the Ontological Argument (especially as developed by Norman Malcolm), even though it is not successful in proving the existence of God, does prove that God, if He exists, is a Necessary Being. So what, big deal huh? Well, what it does mean is that God is either an impossibility or a certainty: there is no middle ground; He cannot possibly exist, and this does lend weight to the theistic argument. If other evidence (such as teleological, axiological or cosmological arguments) can demonstrate according to reason that God possibly exists, I think it tips the balance in the theist’s favour, since any possibility becomes certainty.

I’ll admit this does not give us the Christian God. However, different arguments - if they work - can give us an approximation.

You probably misunderstood me. Of course nothing exists in vacuum. I only said that one does not have to a-priori accept the veracity of the claim. There was a theologian (his name eludes me) who said: “One is not supposed to seek evidence FOR God’s existence. One must accept that God exists, and then should seek evidence OF God’s existence”. In other words, discard the evidence to the contrary, and keep only the supporting evidence.

I think you’re talking about St Anselm, who stated that “I believe in order that I may understand”; he also said “faith seeking understanding”. What this doesn’t mean is discarding evidence to the contrary! This guy practically came up with the Ontological Argument and spent a good deal of time dealing with contrary evidence. In fact, this maxim of his is borrowed from St Augustine, who not only came to Christianity from another religion but also tackled with ideas and evidence contrary to the Christian faith.

 

[jonathan_hili]

What you say reminds me of the words of Billy Graham. He said: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse me with facts”.

Billy Graham may have said that, but it’s not a position the Catholic Church takes. When one considers the brilliant minds in the Church, such as Paul, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, Basil, Catherine of Siena, Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, etc. etc. do you honestly believe these people don’t take account of facts? Now, they might look at facts differently from the way others do, especially those who don’t give any credence to the Christian faith, but they’re not blind fideists.

If Christianity is baseless, how on earth did it begin as it did? As Paul, a man who was a zealous persecutor of Christians, converted - which, I’m sure put an end to his rabbinical career - and caused him much hardship, persecution, etc. to the point of death, writes:

“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.” (1 Cor 15:17-19)

 

[Tyrion]

I disagree. I think the Ontological Argument (especially as developed by Norman Malcolm), even though it is not successful in proving the existence of God, does prove that God, if He exists, is a Necessary Being. So what, big deal huh? Well, what it does mean is that God is either an impossibility or a certainty: there is no middle ground; He cannot possibly exist, and this does lend weight to the theistic argument. If other evidence (such as teleological, axiological or cosmological arguments) can demonstrate according to reason that God possibly exists, I think it tips the balance in the theist’s favour, since any possibility becomes certainty.

I’ll admit this does not give us the Christian God. However, different arguments - if they work - can give us an approximation.

I am familiar with the concept of “necessary being” - of course. Let’s make sure that we talk about the same concept, otherwise we might be just talking past each other, without mutual understanding, and that would be most regrettable.

The concept of “necessary” existence is a consequence of the concept of “possible worlds”, where the phrase “possible world” designates a state of affairs which is different from our world in some respect. “How” different is not important. It could be different in some very small, insignificant detail, or it would be vastly, hugely different. The only requirement is that it should not contain a logical contradiction.

If one can prove that there is a “being”, which exists in all the possible worlds (of which there are infinitely many), then we found a “necessary being”. If we can find just one world, in which that alleged being does not exist, then there is no necessary being.

In other words, if we take the “intersection” of all the possibile worlds, and the intersection is empty (or with other words, it is a “null-world”), then there is no such thing as “necessary existence”. Is this a correct way to put what you meant by “necessary being”?

By the way, I am also familiar with Plantinga’s little linguistic trickery, or word-play, which states that if it is possible that there is a “necessary being”; in other words, if it is not logically impossible that such a being exists, then there is a “necessary being”. Of course this is sheer nonsense, one cannot “define” something into existence, by stating that it is not logically impossible.

I think you’re talking about St Anselm, who stated that “I believe in order that I may understand”; he also said “faith seeking understanding”. What this doesn’t mean is discarding evidence to the contrary! This guy practically came up with the Ontological Argument and spent a good deal of time dealing with contrary evidence. In fact, this maxim of his is borrowed from St Augustine, who not only came to Christianity from another religion but also tackled with ideas and evidence contrary to the Christian faith.

I cannot remember the name, and my reference book is on the other side of the “pond”. But Anselm made a big mistake, when he considered “existence” as just another attribute - which is either present or not - and created the concept of “GCB” - the “greatest conceivable being”. I suggest we do not go into that right now. Maybe later.

 

[Ion]

That is your choice. There is one huge difference between those “words”. Randi has more than just a claim, he can substantiate what he says. Can the church? Nope. It is just a claim. I take the word of medical professionals over the claims of exorcists…

What you say reminds me of the words of Billy Graham. He said: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse me with facts”.

Substatiate with what? Bla bla bla… Where was Randi 2000 years ago? O, we must have understanding, he was not available…Such unlucky human race: durring history nobody was that smart, Einstein, Newton you name it; until now but mister Randi ;

Since Adam and Eve fall we are under the pressure of temptations; Do we believe God or not?
Well, you choosed not, based on Randi’s opinion. Man, this is a striking resemblance whith the most unfortunate event of our history…

Randi’s claim is worse than a heresy: “Supernatural, if you show yourself to me i will give you 1 million dollars” Not even Satan show up.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I think you’ve summed up the concepts of “necessary existence” and “necessary being” well, Tyrion.

I’m not claiming that the Ontological Argument actually proves that God necessarily exists. I don’t think it does. What I think it does prove, is that “in all possible worlds, God either necessarily exists or He cannot possibly exist”, unlike merely contingent beings or things.

 

[Ion]

The concept of “necessary” existence is a consequence of the concept of “possible worlds”, where the phrase “possible world” designates a state of affairs which is different from our world in some respect. “How” different is not important. It could be different in some very small, insignificant detail, or it would be vastly, hugely different. The only requirement is that it should not contain a logical contradiction.

If one can prove that there is a** “being”, which exists in all the possible worlds (of which there are infinitely many)**, then we found a “necessary being”. If we can find just one world, in which that alleged being does not exist, then there is no necessary being.

In other words, if we take the “intersection” of all the possibile worlds, and the intersection is empty (or with other words, it is a “null-world”), then there is no such thing as “necessary existence”. Is this a correct way to put what you meant by “necessary being”?

It is not correct. Our thinking is designed to work with finite elements in bordered sets.
See the Set Theory of Cantor, you can only contemplate the logical implications following to conclusion but you can’t grasp it. The same way you can’t grasp the Quantum Theory.
If the “worlds”=sets are borderless (infinte as common inderstanding) and the being is infinite the intersection doesn’t have meaning. Math guys says infinite is the upper border of the real number set, you can go towards it but never reach it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think you’ve summed up the concepts of “necessary existence” and “necessary being” well, Tyrion.

I’m not claiming that the Ontological Argument actually proves that God necessarily exists. I don’t think it does. What I think it does prove, is that “in all possible worlds, God either necessarily exists or He cannot possibly exist”, unlike merely contingent beings or things.

My understanding is that you are making the observation that “necessary being” is either

1. Logically tenable and therefore must imply a Being that must exist.
2. Logically untenable and therefore pure nonsense.

The concept does not allow a middle ground (which is also logical nonsense) that a necessary being is merely a possible one, i.e. a possible necessary being, which is a contradiction by definition.

I think your other point is that if the cosmological argument holds to require a necessary rather than contingent explanation, then 1) above is supported and logically excludes 2). Therefore, Necessary Being is logically, shall we say, necessary.

Personally, I see no way around the logic because the pure fact of “existence” would seem to be a necessity. If anything “exists” then existence itself is a necessary reality. Existence itself could not be a contingent reality, unless you subscribe to metaphysical magic to explain why anything actually could or does exist. That position, however, requires much greater blind faith than any religious doctrine I can imagine.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I have had too many “supernatural” experiences in my life not to believe in a supernatural plane of existence. Now to other poor souls who have not had these experiences this may not be proof of God, or the immortality of the soul, or miracles, but these experiences do not come from nowhere. They are sufficiently “extraordinary” that they are undeniably real, rather than manufactured by a brain that wants them to happen.

I will take just two that relate to death.

When my grandfather died during the night, I live more than 2,000 miles away and dreamed of his death. The next day we got a telegram that he had died during the night. Since I had no idea at the time that he was even near death, there is no natural phenomenon that can explain my dream.

Again, on the afternoon my mother died my mantle clock stopped at exactly the hour of her death. It didn’t just stop. It broke and had to be repaired. Coincidence? Maybe. I call it extraordinary evidence of the supernatural.

These examples I could multiply. But I am old enough to know the naturalists will not be phased in the least.

 

[Tyrion]

I think you’ve summed up the concepts of “necessary existence” and “necessary being” well, Tyrion.

Excellent. It means that we have a common ground and so we can start from there.

I’m not claiming that the Ontological Argument actually proves that God necessarily exists. I don’t think it does. What I think it does prove, is that “in all possible worlds, God either necessarily exists or He cannot possibly exist”, unlike merely contingent beings or things.

This is not precise at all. The Modal Ontological Argument states that there are three possibilities:

1. An entity (or being) exists in some possible worlds, but does not exist in others… and then the phrase “contingent existence” is used.
2. An entity exists in all the possible worlds, and then it is called to have “necessary existence”.
3. It also mentions that some being does not exist in any of the possible worlds…

And then tries to perform a linguistic somersault, by saying:

“If the existence of a “special” being is not a logical impossibility, then that means that this being exists in at least one possible world.” Which is perfectly true and proper. However, when he substitues the word “necessary” into the word “special”, he gets the following: “If the existence of a “necessary” being is not a logical impossibility, then that means that this being exists in at least one possible world. BUT since this being is “necessary”, therefore it exists in all the possible worlds, and thus - mindboggling - this being is “necessary”!!!”.

Never mind that he declares that this being is “necessary” - WITHOUT showing that it exists in every possible world. What Plantinga did he is a verbal trickery, without substance. The best sleight-of-hand magician could not have done it better. I cannot believe that he got away with it.

In a sense the proponents of the concept of “necessary being” are in a very hard position: “they MUST prove (prove!!!) that there is at least one being which exists in all the possible worlds”. The must go through each and every possible world (and there are infinitely many of them) and show that “being X” exists in all of them. A daunting task - to say the least.

For the “adversery” the task is much simpler: all they have to show that there are at least two possible worlds where their intersection is “empty”. And it is child’s play to do this. If you wish me to show “how”, all you have to do is ask. But I would suggest that you try to do it on your own. Just think of two simple worlds, which have nothing in common.

 

[edwest2]

No doubt. So what?

Yet, many people believed that they were of extraterrestrial origin.

Who investigated them?

That is your choice. There is one huge difference between those “words”. Randi has more than just a claim, he can substantiate what he says. Can the church? Nope. It is just a claim. I take the word of medical professionals over the claims of exorcists…

What you say reminds me of the words of Billy Graham. He said: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse me with facts”.

Do you have a source for that Billy Graham quote? I admire Mr. Graham and his work. I think he is a very good writer as well. He knows how to communicate with the average person in person and in his writing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Excellent. It means that we have a common ground and so we can start from there.

This is not precise at all. The Modal Ontological Argument states that there are three possibilities:

1. An entity (or being) exists in some possible worlds, but does not exist in others… and then the phrase “contingent existence” is used.
2. An entity exists in all the possible worlds, and then it is called to have “necessary existence”.
3. It also mentions that some being does not exist in any of the possible worlds…

And then tries to perform a linguistic somersault, by saying:

“If the existence of a “special” being is not a logical impossibility, then that means that this being exists in at least one possible world.” Which is perfectly true and proper. However, when he substitues the word “necessary” into the word “special”, he gets the following: “If the existence of a “necessary” being is not a logical impossibility, then that means that this being exists in at least one possible world. BUT since this being is “necessary”, therefore it exists in all the possible worlds, and thus - mindboggling - this being is “necessary”!!!”.

Never mind that he declares that this being is “necessary” - WITHOUT showing that it exists in every possible world. What Plantinga did he is a verbal trickery, without substance. The best sleight-of-hand magician could not have done it better. I cannot believe that he got away with it.

In a sense the proponents of the concept of “necessary being” are in a very hard position: “they MUST prove (prove!!!) that there is at least one being which exists in all the possible worlds”. The must go through each and every possible world (and there are infinitely many of them) and show that “being X” exists in all of them. A daunting task - to say the least.

For the “adversery” the task is much simpler: all they have to show that there are at least two possible worlds where their intersection is “empty”. And it is child’s play to do this. If you wish me to show “how”, all you have to do is ask. But I would suggest that you try to do it on your own. Just think of two simple worlds, which have nothing in common.

I think it is you who are enacting the verbal trickery. A being might, logically speaking, just happen to exist in all possible worlds without being necessary. To actually be a “necessary” being, a being would have to exist in all possible worlds, not just merely happen to do so.

Your #2 does not cover the distinction between a being that happens to exist in all possible worlds (which is a logical possibility) and one that necessarily does. That is the point at which your argument fails. The first being would not fit the definition of necessary being, which is the ambiguity that your argument plays on, because you attempt to present your logical imposter as necessary then deny that it could be. Sounds like bait and switch merchandizing.

 

[Ion]

Do you have a source for that Billy Graham quote? I admire Mr. Graham and his work. I think he is a very good writer as well. He knows how to communicate with the average person in person and in his writing.

Peace,
Ed

Sounds like Graham was ordering his meal…
i’v google it and founded on this forum posted by, trurl, thread “how much freedom”

 

[jonathan_hili]

“If the existence of a “special” being is not a logical impossibility, then that means that this being exists in at least one possible world.” Which is perfectly true and proper. However, when he substitues the word “necessary” into the word “special”, he gets the following: “If the existence of a “necessary” being is not a logical impossibility, then that means that this being exists in at least one possible world. BUT since this being is “necessary”, therefore it exists in all the possible worlds, and thus - mindboggling - this being is “necessary”!!!”.

I’m not talking about Plantinga’s argument - I’m not too fond of it. I mean Norman Malcolm’s argument. He focuses on attributes of Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) as unlimited, and concomitantly lacking existential dependency (for generation or preservation) nor happening to come into existence, which would challenge His necessity.

Consequently:
(i) If GCB (which we call God) does not exist then He cannot come into existence, for if so He would have been caused and be a dependent being or just happen to come into existence, and as such, would be a limited being and thereby not GCB.
(ii) Since He cannot come into existence, if GCB does not exist, His existence is impossible.
(iii) Since He cannot come into existence, if GCB does exist, His existence is necessary.
(iv) Therefore, God’s existence is either impossible or necessary.
(v) It can be the former only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or logically absurd.
(vi) Assuming that this is not so, therefore, God necessarily exists.

 

[Tyrion]

I’m not talking about Plantinga’s argument - I’m not too fond of it.

Does that mean that we can dispense with the Plantinga variant? That the “necessary” existence has nothing to do with existing in all the possible worlds? Because this was our mutually accepted starting point - in my understanding.

I mean Norman Malcolm’s argument. He focuses on attributes of Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) as unlimited…

That is more like the original suggestion of Anselm. It is simply incoherent. The reason is that that there are infinitely many possible attributes, and many of those attributes are incompatible and/or contradictory. No “being” can be both “infinitely large” and “infinitely small”. Or “infinitely smart and powerful” and “infinitely stupid and weak”… or “infinitely slim” and "infinitely “fat”… I could continue.

Therefore the GCB is simply undefined. Now some people grab a few attributes - which they subjectively consider important - and say that the GCB is unsurpassed in relation to those attributes, and they quietly forget about the rest. As such it becomes a subjective assessment, just “WHAT” constitutes “greatness”. Why those attributes and not others?

and concomitantly lacking existential dependency (for generation or preservation) nor happening to come into existence, which would challenge His necessity.

What does “necessity” mean in this case? I was under the impression, that Plantinga’s possible world scenario is now “out”.

Consequently:
(i) If GCB (which we call God) does not exist then He cannot come into existence, for if so He would have been caused and be a dependent being or just happen to come into existence, and as such, would be a limited being and thereby not GCB.
(ii) Since He cannot come into existence, if GCB does not exist, His existence is impossible.
(iii) Since He cannot come into existence, if GCB does exist, His existence is necessary.
(iv) Therefore, God’s existence is either impossible or necessary.
(v) It can be the former only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or logically absurd.
(vi) Assuming that this is not so, therefore, God necessarily exists.

Since (v) is true - this being is self-contradictory AND logically absurd… (vi) is incorrect, and thus God does not exist.