Would God's "Necessity" Amount to Proof of God's Existence?

[Parsimony]

Are you looking for empirical evidence in support of the notion that you don't need empirical evidence?

Um, no? I'm just saying that it seems counter-intuitive to have a logical proof for something that turned out to not be true.

I suspect that every time a theory has fallen to a "test of the cross" in the history of science, the fallen theory has been one that in some sense was a case of a logical proof for the existence of something that turned out to not actually exist. But tests of the cross are rare.

I also suspect that the history of ether in physics is a case of something that was logically thought necessary to exist but which was shown to be irrelevant by Einstein and others.

Wouldn't that just be a case of insufficient or faulty evidence, though? Can something even be considered a proof if part of its premise was flawed from the beginning?

 

[Ouroboros]

Suppose for the sake of discussion that after many, many stimulating cups of coffee you stumbled upon a brilliant, purely logical proof that deity must necessarily exist. Would this purely logical proof alone be sufficient to demonstrate the existence of deity? Or would it need to be confirmed by empirical evidence? Why or why not?

The problem is that we don't understand how the world works, how it started, and how our minds/consciousness really emerges. There are many unanswered questions, so when we somehow use logic to conclude some necessity, we've used our limitations of understanding of the world and jumped over all unanswered questions, and somehow got to an answer beyond our questions. So, no, I don't think "necessity" means anything in our quantum world.