Short Proof that God Exists

(the Ontological Argument is shorter,
but that old chestnut is not a proof ;-)

The proof can begin with “that old chestnut,” because having “that” and “old,” having “old” and “chestnut,” and having “that” and “chestnut” are three distinct ways of having two of those three words; indeed, those ways are just as distinct from each other as those words because of how those ways differ from each other.
      In general, whenever there are three distinct things, there are three equally distinct ways of having some (more than one, less than all) of those things. And in particular, there are three ways of having two of those three ways of having two of those words.
      And because there are, there are three ways of having two of those ways.
      And three ways of having two of them.
      And so on, endlessly.

There is no end to that, no final three ways of that kind, because for any three things, there are three ways of having two of those things. There are, in other words, infinitely many ways of that kind (the word “infinite” comes from the ancient Greek for unending). Infinitely many things is a lot of things to have, given only three words, though; are there really so many things? Well, there clearly are three ways of having two of those words, and because there are, there are three ways of having two of those ways, and three ways of having two of them, similarly, and so on. Still, is it possible that, although there are always more and more of those ways, there are never all of them? Could some sort of process be involved in there being those ways of having some of some things? Well, there does not seem to be: those ways seem to exist automatically and immediately, whenever those things exist.
      And if there are all of those ways, because there is no such process, then there will, for the same reason, be every way of having some of those ways.
      And similarly, every way of having some of them.
      And so on, endlessly.

And there will, similarly, be all of the ways of having some of those ways.
      And all the ways of having some of them.
      And so on, endlessly.

And so forth, endlessly.

And because there would, were there no such process, be all of those ways, there would also be every way of having some of those ways, and every way of having some of them, and so on endlessly.
      And there would, similarly, be every way of having some of those ways, and so on endlessly.
      And so forth, endlessly.

And so on and so forth: there is no end to this because for each and every one of these ways of having some of some things, that way would, were there no such process, exist because of the existence of all of the things that it is a way of having just some of.
      And of course, if each and every one of those ways does exist, then they all exist; and of course, if they all exist, then there cannot be more of them.
      And yet, if all of those ways do exist, there being no such process, then it follows, from them all existing, and there being no such process, that there are also all of the ways of having some of them. And the fact that if there is no such process, then there are, of logical necessity, things that there cannot be means that there is, of logical necessity, such a process.

What if the only possible process was as outlandish as action at a distance; would it then be more scientific to conclude that we had not evolved to be able to think logically about such things? No, because the scientific method is nothing if not logical. The theory of evolution by natural selection can explain the physical facts of biological things, but it can explain them whether there is such a process or not, and it explains them scientifically only insofar as that explanation is a logical explanation.
      And there is no contradiction in the idea that the universe was created out of nothing but its possibility and the power of its creator. So, the existence of such a creator is presumably a logical possibility.
      And if there is such a creator, then before that creator created anything, that creator would presumably have known a very wide range of possibilities for what could have been created.
      It also makes sense that before that creator created anything, there would have been nothing but that creator. So, such a creator could conceivably be above and beyond the concept of a thing of a certain kind, and the concept of one thing, and indeed, all of our most logical concepts of a thing.
      Putting that all together, it is possible that there is such a creator, and that before that creator created any things (as we know them), that creator chose the concept of a created thing from a very wide range of very similar concepts.
      Could that creator have chosen more than one of those concepts? Well, things do, as a rule, fall under lots of concepts. And while it is the case that if that creator’s concept of a created thing was a mass of similar concepts, then the differences between those concepts might give some otherwise possible things inconsistent properties, that just means that if such a creator was considering more and more ways of the kind described above, then that creator might have to remove some concepts, from such a mass of concepts, in order to keep those ways logically possible.
      By deciding which concepts to remove, such a creator would, in effect, be creating those ways; and such a mass of concepts could conceivably be so massive that it could always be reduced in such a way that more of those decisions would always be needed, so such a creator could conceivably be creating those ways forever.

And how else could such ways get ever more numerous? Such ways of having some of some things are all as distinct from each other as the original things (those three words, in this particular case). So, those ways could only get ever more numerous if they were endlessly becoming logically possible. And how else could they become logically possible, other than by being created? Only if all things are created can the concept of a thing exist prior to any things.
      And why would things be created in such a convoluted way, if not to show the most intelligent creatures that they are created? And of course, if the universe is created out of nothing by a creator who wants us to know that it is, then “God” would be as good a name as any for that creator. So, God exists.