Analytic philosopher Jason Waller discusses the question of the necessity of God in his article: “Can only abstract objects exist by necessity?” He is responding to an argument that only abstract objects necessarily exist:
God is a concrete object, not an abstract object.
All concrete objects exist contingently.
Therefore, God is a non-necessary being.
As I suggest in a comment on Jason’s blog, this all seems very wrong-headed. Can we properly talk about God as an “object,” abstract, concrete, or otherwise? Yes, I know that such talk is inevitable. Christians properly tell stories of their God. In these stories Deity is rendered as both personal agent and object of our praises and prayers. Perhaps we might therefore speak of him as a “narrative agent” or “doxological object”—but this speech presumes the apophatic apprehension, without which we would be talking about an idol.
Why is the transcendent Creator a necessary being? Because if he were not, we could always ask of him, “Why God rather than nothing?” or “Who created God?” And we would be right back with infinite turtles.
(And if you are wondering whether I am a turtle, the answer is yes. I was inducted as a member of the Ancient and Honorable Order of Turtles in 1970.)