(August 30, 2016 at 7:20 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Yes, using the term 'being' begs the question. Logical fallacy 101. Hence theistic philosophers argue for a 'necessary cause' and layer theistic arguments from there. That takes you on to a whole heap of different problems.
But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you a 'Necessary Being'. How could you tie that Deistic concept to any specific theistic concept?
Easily.
Most of the old creations stories begin before creation with an infinite undifferentiated substance. The Greeks called this "chaos". The Egyptians called it "Nu". In Hinduism, the body of Brahma is an infinite ocean. In Babylonian myth the fresh and salt water gods come out of a previously undifferentiated watery state.
The necessary being is "stuff", matter, extant-ness, substance. Pure being is matter taking up all space. In atomic matter 99.999999% of the space of the atom is not taken up by matter. There is hardly anything there to "be" at all....yet here we are, made of them.
It is before the "first cause". The first cause is what causes cavitation of this substance into stable void spheres aka universes.
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
