Question

I understand that I am waiving issues like the absolute/relative simplicity/complexity distinction, the difference between the logic of existence and the logic of nonexistence per se, etc., so I understand that this line of reasoning is (relatively!) naive. However:

Even if a necessary being doesn't exist, then there is an explanation why (a reason why the force of necessity was blocked, despite necessity's essential character).
An explanation of why a necessary being does exist would be trivial: it exists by necessity.
An explanation as to why it doesn't exist would be less trivial, and hence more complicated.
The object of an explanation for why some specific necessary being doesn't exist would itself be a specific object, whose own existence would be necessitated so as to explain why the other necessary being doesn't exist

Answer 1

Philosophical discussions about God's existence often involve the distinction between necessary and contingent beings. Arguments for God's existence, like the Ontological and Cosmological Arguments, propose that God is a necessary being. These arguments are contested on various philosophical grounds, illustrating the complexity of the debate.

Step-by-step explanation:

Understanding the Existence of a Necessary Being

The philosophical debate around the existence of God often centers on the concepts of necessary and contingent beings. A necessary being is one whose existence is not contingent upon anything else—it must exist by the very nature of its being. In contrast, a contingent being exists only because of something else's existence or a set of conditions.

Regarding the existence of God, arguments like Anselm's Ontological Argument suggest that God, being the greatest conceivable being, would necessarily exist as a necessary being. This is based on the premise that existence in reality is greater than existence solely in the mind. Therefore, if God exists as an idea, God must also exist in reality. Critics, however, like Immanuel Kant argue that existence is not a predicate—that is, existence does not add to the essence of a being.

Consequently, while the ontological and cosmological arguments seek to establish God as a necessary being, they are met with significant criticism. For instance, the Fallacy of Composition questions whether the cause for every contingent being can be attributed to a single necessary being. Further critiques challenge the special pleading that allows the positing of a necessary being like God while excluding the universe itself from being considered as such.

Ultimately, the question posed reflects a philosophical examination of necessity, contingency, and the conditions under which we assert that a necessary being either exists or does not exist. The complexity of the argument and its implications stretches far beyond trivial explanations.