Well sure, it's logically consistent. A "necessary existent being" is just an "existent being". The being either exists or it does not. Unless you're saying it's also invulnerable to destruction or something.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 2, 2026, 4:44 pm
Thread Rating:
|
A Necessary Being?
|
|
Numbers, rob, numbers are a necessary being in this context. That's the kind of necessary being he's referring to (I hope).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Something is necessary implies it has a purpose, and if by definition it has to exist, then there is nothing inherently wrong about it existing so long as the purpose exists.
Yeah...
Remind me what the point of this is? A necessary magic tomato which burps the national anthem while spinning multiverses through its pips is logically consistent, if you're allowed to just make up whatever you want.  (August 29, 2016 at 4:56 pm)TheMuslim Wrote: No need to get all worked up, fellas. I did not say or imply anything about whether a Necessary Being actually exists. In this thread, I am not trying to prove that a Necessary Being exists. I am simply wondering if the very concept of a Necessary Being is logically impossible. No need to apologize and I personally have no judgement against that sort of activity. I just prefer to do it in private with porn.
I'm not at all worked up. Just laying down my shiznitz. Keeping it realzies.
I'd be a bit concerned if there was something I believed existed, but it was still up for discussion where it's even possible such a thing existed.
 (August 29, 2016 at 4:56 pm)TheMuslim Wrote: No need to get all worked up, fellas. I did not say or imply anything about whether a Necessary Being actually exists. In this thread, I am not trying to prove that a Necessary Being exists. I am simply wondering if the very concept of a Necessary Being is logically impossible. doesn't that fall under Prime Mover 101?  (August 29, 2016 at 5:00 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well sure, it's logically consistent. A "necessary existent being" is just an "existent being". The being either exists or it does not. Unless you're saying it's also invulnerable to destruction or something. By "Necessary Being," , I obviously don't simply mean "an existent being." By "Necessary Being," again, I mean "something which cannot not exist." Me and you are existent beings, but we are not "Necessary Beings." It is possible for me and you to not exist, or to have not existed (we, indeed, did not exist at the time of dinosaurs). Existence is only predicated to us once we find out that we actually exist in the real world. A "Necessary Being," however, unlike me or you, cannot not exist. Existence is in the very definition of a Necessary Being. That is what philosophers mean when they speak of a "Necessary Being." |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
