![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmYGMBtkivC896GixLscBw9rCp7c2Bbdm9tJyokTG79tu5/image.png)
Source: [PixaBay / PIRO4D](https://pixabay.com/en/puzzle-share-3d-task-solution-1721464/)

In a [previous post](/philosophy/@eturnerx/taking-apart-an-argument-the-argument-from-truth-for-the-existence-of-god) I examined an argument for the existence of God and found that it was not valid. The same social media account posted a similar argument, and I address that form of the argument in this post.

> The laws of logic are necessary truths about truths; they are necessarily true propositions. Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities; they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person. A necessarily existent person must be spiritual in nature because no physical entity exists necessarily. Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God.
 
[The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic](https://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1RgFhfM7Scb0aAaETCmtoa9-at3M_2rGYLmeSSgzRWhQkAttChQ1M5vDs), James N. Anderson and Greg Welty

As in the last post, I will address this particular argument based only on the [validity](https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/) of the argument. While I believe this argument for the existence of God invalid, it does not mean that some other argument might be sound.
The first part of the argument sets up the premises. That I do not agree with the premises affects the soundness of the argument, but the argument might still be valid. So, accept the premises as true and move onwards while we check validity. The following statement makes the argument invalid:
> But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; 

The second usage of *necessarily* is an [equivocation](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/81/Equivocation), which is to use an ambiguous term in more than one sense. So, what are the two potential meanings of the word necessarily?

1. in logic: conditional or implicational relationship between statements (see [necessary / sufficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency))
2. in theology: a member of a category of minds (see [God and Other Necessary Beings](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/))


So, which of these two meanings follows from the earlier argument? One trick for spotting an equivocation is to reword the statement to make each of the intended meanings clearer and then see which best follows from the preceding argument. The potential meanings are labelled.
Original: But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind;
Meaning 1: But if there are necessarily(1) existent thoughts, there must *necessarily(1) be an* existent mind;
Meaning 2: But if there are necessarily(1) existent thoughts, there must *exist a necessary(2) mind*;


The first rewording preserves the usage of "necessarily" as its usage in logic, and this flows without contention from the earlier argument. 
The second rewording would require separate argumentation to establish that only the necessary mind (god mind) can hold thoughts about necessary truths such as logic. Without making this argument, if the god mind is the only place where necessary truths can exist then the arguer then has no claim that logic can exist in their minds and so we can dismiss any argument they would advance, including this one. So, the arguer must establish that only a god mind (or some other kind of necessary mind) can be the place for necessary thoughts.
Since the first rewording follows from the preceding argument and the second rewording requires additional argumentation to make sense, we will keep the first rewording. 
Is this sufficient to defeat the argument? Yes. If we take the rewording then a defeater opens up, and this defeater is the same as that in the [previous article](/philosophy/@eturnerx/taking-apart-an-argument-the-argument-from-truth-for-the-existence-of-god):

Each possible world only requires a mind of some kind for true thoughts (such as logic) to exist within. As long as there is a possible world with a finite mind, then a god-like mind is not necessary in that world. Since a god-like mind is not necessary in all worlds, then this argument is not proof for god in all possible worlds, and so there is not valid proof for the existence of God in the actual world. 
It gets worse: the argument leads to a conclusion that because the actual world contains our minds for truth to exist in, then god is not required in the actual world — a bit of an own goal.

A responder attempted to argue for the second rewording:
> However, contingent minds like ours cannot *define* laws of logic; they can merely *encompass* them without nonetheless having any effect on the reality of logic whatsoever. [emphasis added]

At first glance, their response does mend the argument. However, let’s look closer: it appears that the words encompass and define are two different modes for how logic might exist in minds. Since the distinction between to encompass and to define is essential to the argument, then it should be made apparent which the arguer intends by rewording the argument. 
A reworked argument would probably argue first for the necessity of certain truths (like logic), then that truths must be *grounded*, then that only necessary minds (god mind) can ground truth. The above argument does not do this; there is an equivocation in how the word necessarily is used and the meaning of grounding truth is not defined. I suspect that the notion of what it means to ground truth would be a target for objection.

Anyways, first the argument must be valid, then it is time to address the soundness. Sound off in the comments if I have made a mistake. Alternatively, chime in with your favourite argument for the existence of God.