A Necessary Being?

[wiploc]

Is there anything wrong with a Necessary Being per se?

---

Is there really anything incoherent or illogical about the very concept of a Necessary Being? In other words, can anyone come up with reasons why a Necessary Being is impossible? Or have we now accepted that it is certainly possible for there to be a Necessary Being?

By "Necessary Being," I mean something that cannot not exist. In other words, "existence" is in the very essence/definition of that thing.

---

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?

Substitute "thing" for "being."

Then (1) he's not begging the question on that word, and (2) there are no deistic implications. 

I used to have the same problem, but, over time, I've become convinced that they usually aren't smuggling a person into the conversation disguised as a "being."  All they mean is "thing." 

So, presumptively, TheMuslim isn't being tricky here.  And if it turns out that I'm wrong about that, then we can call him on it when he plays that card.