Are there any substantive differences between these two propositions?

Question: Are there any substantive differences between these two propositions!?

A) God necessarily exists!.

B) God exists necessarily!.

C) Necessarily, God exists!.

Are these 3 propositions making the same truth-claim!? What difference does the location or placing of the modal operator "necessarily" make!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Qualification: I'm not an English-major, but the following is the connotation-differences I get from each one:

A) Without a 'god' in the universe we would simply not-exist!.

B) 'god' evolved from forces previous to him!.

C) 'god' exists, or is said to exist to help the masses deal with the ambiguities of life!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I think God doesn't care!.

I think God doesn't necessarily care!.

I think God necessarily doesn't care!.

Necessarily, God doesn't care!.

IMHO, It's all the same!.

EDIT: OK, let me try again!.
a) God necessarily exists!. - said by someone who hopes that god exist!.
b) God exists necessarily!. - said by someone practical who thinks god should exist!.
c) Necessarily, God exists - said by someone arrogant who is very sure god exists!.

Happy!? ;)Www@QuestionHome@Com

They're all equally ambiguous in that none of them relate the asserted necessity to anyone or anything!.

Is God's existence necessary to your belief system!? or logically necessary, in your view!? or necessary, in your view, to the existence of the universe!?

There are different meanings here, but none of them relate to the location of the word; any of these variants can take any of those meanings!.Www@QuestionHome@Com