It's just a bait-and-switch. The survey talks about things, and they suddenly introduce 'being' when you get to the 'gotcha' at the end. Thing/=being. A non-contingent thing (like a vacuum fluctuation) is not a non-contingent being.

---

The logic DOES prove something: If a necessary being exists, it necessarily exists, and if it does not exist, it necessarily does not exist.

(August 17, 2012 at 1:40 pm)FemmeRealism Wrote: ...but math has never failed me...

The first-order logic we all know and love can be thought of as math.
This modal stuff is still math, it's just... without any sort of additive or multiplicative structure.

The dishonesty of the site, especially from Ph. Ds, is very telling, I think.

I've read the recent posts, and again, I'm very grateful for the feedback. If there is a "bait-and-switch" somewhere, I will certainly want to fix that. Just to be clear, the term 'Necessary Being' is ultimately defined in terms of 'thing', so I don't perceive any equivocation there. But if there's still a problem somewhere else that I've missed, I hope to fix that. For what it's worth, I used the term 'being' only because of historical precedent (where 'being' does not imply intelligence, etc.), but I appreciate the worry that it could have that connotation. It's not my intent to mislead, or to make a case for theism. I would be happy if the website helps people to see that a number of potentially attractive causal principles are ultimately false (or problematic) insofar as they entail a necessary concrete thing, which they have reason to deny. Others might find in the website a reason to incorporate necessary material things into their ontology. My own thinking about necessary things doesn't really enter into my reasons for collecting data about other people's views. My goal is to learn from others and test out ideas (and adjust my thinking accordingly).

Again, thanks for the valuable input. I appreciate the skeptical reactions and comments, since they convey a desire for intellectual integrity.

(August 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm)jrasmus1 Wrote: I would be happy if the website helps people to see that a number of potentially attractive causal principles are ultimately false (or problematic) insofar as they entail a necessary concrete thing, which they have reason to deny.

In this, be happy