God exists

Now, although your objections are quite intellectual, I would like to quote my opening argument: "We must assume the following in this argument: it is greater to be necessary than contingent; one cannot conceive of something that is impossible i.e. a triangle with four angles. These assumptions, I believe are quite obvious, and I only suggest that they are assumed so that I don't have to spend the whole argument proving them." Obviously you haven't thoroughly read my opening argument since you intend to spend the rest of the argument discussing why necessity and contingency cannot be compared or something of that sort. I will attempt one final time to address this --- the only standing issue in my argument. Con: "They are two separate concepts... [,necessity and contingency]" I am sure you did not mean to say this because they indeed are not two separate concepts. Necessity has to do with the very essence of things as does contingency. I understand that they are two different realities but indeed they are concepts which share in a common species of definition. Con: "...subjectively ranking them would be illogical. [,necessity and contingency]" Pro: "Evidently you have misinterpreted the term "greatness" into what often refers to beauty or some sort of subjective response." I quote these to show you that I agree with you, a subjective response i.e., a response that is based purely on feeling and exists in the elective faculty, would indeed be foolish to use in a demonstration. However, I maintain that this is not a subjective ranking but rather a matter of intuition i.e., the same intuition by which we accept the Law of Non-Contradiction. This intuition is natural within the intellect and, like the Law of Non-Contradiction, cannot be demonstrated. I maintain that understanding the order of these things in the universe, i.e. what is more perfect, can never be fully demonstrated since a syllogism requires two premises that are more universal than the conclusion. Since there is nothing more universal than the perfection of the universal it would seem obvious that there cannot be premises offered in order to conclude that necessity is greater than contingency. We must trust our intuition within the intellect by which we believe in LNC, which is the basis of all logic and rationality. Consider this: Necessity implies these things about a being: a) it is possible for this being to exist; b) it is impossible for this being not to exist. Contingency implies these things about a being: a) it is possible for this being to exist; b) it is possible for this being not to exist. I insist that it is greater i.e., of a greater degree of perfection, for a being to be unable to not exist than for a being to be possible to exist or not exist. This I cannot demonstrate as I have attempted to explain above. It is analogous to how one maintains that it is better for something to be rational than irrational. We cannot prove this without first assuming that it is better to have a reason for it which is evident by our desire to prove it. So if you disagree that necessity is more perfect than contingency on the basis that it based on intuition, remember that you assuming that providing a logical reason for anything is better than stating it for no reason, is indeed an act of faith upon your own intuition.