I am not trained in philosophy, but recently I decided to try to put some thoughts I've been having into the form of a philosophical argument. The argument is very nascent and I am sure has as many holes as Swiss cheese, but it goes something like this:
Definition: A “god” is a person with the ability to choose which contingently-existent things exist in reality.
1. It is logically possible for a god to exist in reality.
2. There is a contingently-existent thing that exists in reality.
3. Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that no god exists in reality.
4. Then a god is a contingently-existent thing.
5. Then there is a contingently-existent thing that exists in reality and a contingently-existent thing that does not exist in reality.
6. In light of infinite regress, the only reason for one contingently-existent thing to exist in reality and another not to exist in reality is because it was chosen to be so.
7. Hence, a true choice was made as to which contingently-existent things exist in reality.
8. True choice implies the existence of a person doing the choosing.
9. Hence, there exists a person who chose which contingently-existent things exist in reality.
10. Hence, a god exists in reality.
11. This contradicts (3).
12. Therefore, a god exists in reality.
I suspect it is possible to show from the definition, or by disregarding the fact that some things exist and others don't and simply arguing from the arbitrariness of existence, that if a god exists, then only one God exists.
To summarize in one question: "If God does not exist, then why does God not exist?" That is, why should one logically possible thing exist in reality if another does not? #6 seems particularly weak, but I haven't figured out how to tighten it up. Another thing is that we humans seem to have the ability to bring certain contingent things into existence but not others, so it is sort of a different sense than the sense I have in mind for a God, but I don't know how to modify the definition to reflect this. Another option is to refer to a person that can choose between realities, but upon further reflection this doesn't seem to rectify the situation.
If anyone has any ideas of how an argument like this might be polished, or has any other comments, I am interested. Again, I understand this is very amateurish attempt, but exploring stuff like this is always fun. I know this is a science site, but I hope you will entertain some philosophy.