A Necessary Being?

[The Grand Nudger]

A necessary being is simply something that can't "not exist".  It's not a being in the sense that -you- are a human "being". In all cases but one it is an abstract. That one case, is a god....and the utility of the notion for those who already believe is obvious....but not strictly related to the concept of a necessary being.

[Whateverist]

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.

You mean like if you were beset with god belief?

[Aoi Magi]

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."

Again "Necessary" implies "purpose". If it has no purpose, then said being is not necessary, moreover if that purpose can be fulfilled by alternatives then also that being is not necessary.

[robvalue]

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."

It's possible I can't exist because I can be killed? My energy will still exist, it will just change forms. And the energy existed before "I" came about.

Or are we talking about hypothetical realities and not the one we actually have?

So is "necessary" just indestructible then? Because I'd say it's pretty impossible for me to not exist when I exist. Of course, what you mean by "me" is rather vague. I'm a collection of ever changing chemicals.

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't AOI, it -just- means that the thing can't "not exist".  No purpose involved or implied.

[robvalue]

I think it means "I don't have any evidence so I'll just assert it exists". Sure beats doing any work or worrying about reality.

[Whateverist]

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."

It's possible I can't exist because I can be killed? My energy will still exist, it will just change forms. And the energy existed before "I" came about.

Or are we talking about hypothetical realities and not the one we actually have?

So is "necessary" just indestructible then? Because I'd say it's pretty impossible for me to not exist when I exist. Of course, what you mean by "me" is rather vague. I'm a collection of ever changing chemicals.

But what if, unbeknown to you, you're actually a necessary being.  You cannot not exist and have always existed.  To prevent boredom every now and then you incarnate into a particular form and also wipe your own memory.  You .. could .. be .. that .. guy.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it means "I don't have any evidence so I'll just assert it exists". Sure beats doing any work or worrying about reality.

That's a common mis-use of the concept, yes. The concept itself, though, different subject. I know I keep using numbers..but...that some people use numbers for numerology isn't indicative of a problem -with numbers-. Has OP mis-used the concept...(yet ) ?

[Arkilogue]

"Being" means existing in space and time which of course implied an inevitable ending.

A "necessary" being suggest an existence beyond the normal parameters given above, mere metaphysical speculation...though I'd enjoy pondering an argument for.

When do quarks end? Forms rise and fall but the stuff they're made of remains to rise again.

The latest perspective in science is that the universe (our space time) is expanding and accelerating, how can it end?

[robvalue]

Hehe.

I don't get the point of speculating about how reality could have been, when we have what it actually is, right in front of us.

Anyone?