(August 30, 2016 at 10:48 pm)wiploc Wrote:

(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?

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.

But what about space? Is it a "thing" or a "being"? Perhaps space might even be the "Necessary being"?

If there is absolutely no space, there can also be no matter to occupy it.
If there is no space for a world to exist in...no worlds can exist. In order to have a world it must take up space. Space is the necessary being.

(August 30, 2016 at 7:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You majored in philosophy....Whatevs?  I never knew.  All the art history spots were taken or something?  

I know, right?  Not to mention the garden design degrees.  Hmm.  Maybe I'll get one of those in some other possible world.  

It was my bad luck to be influenced by a very woo ridden drug enhanced philosophy instructor at a JC so I went to Cal as a philosophy major.  Went in full of woo; came out with my speech and writing devoid of metaphors.  Did pretty good but got my fill.  I shall philosophize no more forever.  Luckily for you lot I still shoot from the hip for free though.

(August 30, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(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.

Well sure, you did it.  But I'm pretty sure he meant in a convincing manner employing valid arguments.

(August 30, 2016 at 11:30 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(August 30, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Easily.

Well sure, you did it.  But I'm pretty sure he meant in a convincing manner employing valid arguments.

What is there to argue? The legends say what they do and they are easy enough to look up for oneself. The concept is there.
Are you asking me to prove them right?

I enjoy the legend of Mighty Mouse as much as the next fiction appreciator. But .. yes. Justify what they say if you think you can.

I saw Danger Mouse as a small child.

(August 31, 2016 at 12:39 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I saw Danger Mouse as a small child.

Freakin Penfold always messing things up...

(August 30, 2016 at 11:40 pm)TheMuslim Wrote: It is imperative (and extremely relevant) to acknowledge the difference between "essential predication" and "accidental predication." If you are ignorant about these terms, read up on them.

I thought we were getting on well, but now suddenly you're all arrogant and insulting.  

Quote:A Necessary Being, by definition, cannot not exist. It must exist at all times, places, and worlds. But it is crucial to note that by saying this, I am predicating existence to the Necessary Being as an essential predicate, not as an accidental predicate.

I wonder if you don't just enjoy dressing up simple concepts in abstruse language.  Your first sentence was clear and succinct.  Your second sentence is redundant where it's not wrong.  The third sentence is a waste of words.  

Quote:It is impossible to predicate nonexistence to a Necessary Being as an essential predicate, because that would be a contradiction (a Necessary Being is, essentially, existent).

"Essentially existent," nice.  And above, "by definition cannot not exist," also nice.  What do you think you're adding to that with your predication talk, your imperative, extremely relevant (as if that were a concept), and crucial predication talk?  

Quote:However, it is indeed possible to predicate nonexistence to a Necessary Being as an accidental predicate. This would not lead to any contradictions (a Necessary Being has existence predicated to it as an essential predicate, not as an accidental predicate, and therefore denying its existence as an accidental predicate does nothing to harm it).

You're saying it is defined as existing even thought it doesn't happen to exist. 

In addition, you're saying I need lessons so I can talk fancy like you.  While I appreciate your concern, Plantinga and William Lane Craig get along fine without your terminology.  I choose to refute them using their own words.  

Quote:So one may conceive of a possible world with nonexistence predicated to the Necessary Being as an accidental predicate. This does not mean that a Necessary Being does not exist, because Necessary Beings do not even require existence in all possible worlds as an accidental predicate in the first place.

Now you've just confused yourself with your tricksy talk.  If a necessary being doesn't exist in one possible world, then it doesn't exist in any possible world.