(I don’t actually buy this argument; I just think it’s funny).
For every concept, that concept logically implies its opposite. The concept of an ingroup logically implies the existence of an outgroup by the very definition of an ingroup, since an ingroup cannot exist unless there is something it is distinguishing itself from. Similarly, evil logically implies the existence of ‘good,’ since the definition of evil is failing to conform to a certain set standard, which is what we refer to as ‘the good’.
But in order from concepts to be able to be derived, that process of deriving must result in a logically possible result. There’s nothing logically impossible about the existence of an outgroup. Again, there’s nothing logically impossible about the existence of ‘good’.
But what if we take the terms of ‘all’ or ‘none’? Let’s look at ‘all’. Can we conceive of a scenario in which its opposite ‘none’ can be made sense of? Can we derive ‘none’ or ‘nothing’ from an understanding of ‘all’?
1. For something to be logically possible, it has to be capable of being actualized.
2. ‘None’ or ‘nothing’ are not capable of being actualized.
3. Therefore, neither ‘none’ nor ‘nothing’ are logically possible.
4. If neither ‘none’ nor ‘nothing’ are logically possible, then there must always be something in existence.
5. If there is always something in existence, then at least one thing is eternal.
6. For something to be eternal, it has to be incapable of going out of existence.
7. If it is incapable of going out of existence, it cannot be material.
8. Therefore, X is incapable of going out of existence. (6, 7)
9. The only object that cannot be material, yet exist, is a mind, since abstract objects don’t exist.
10. Therefore, an eternal mind exists. And that is what we call God.