Can anyone provide an argument for a necessary being?

[Rampant.A.I.]

I've seen the classical arguments, but every argument for a necessary being seems like an appeal to ignorance.

An unfalsifiable premise doesn't seem rational. Perhaps this is the reason I have problems with ontological arguments: they all seem to be appeals to ignorance, with a deus ex thrown in as the explanation.

So my challenge is: can anyone provide a cogent and compelling argument for a necessary being?

Why we can't we contemplate a necessary being without concluding it exists, without resulting to the same appeals to ignorance that resulted in Thor, God of Thunder and Lightning?

How would a being or entity be necessary in the absence of a plausible natural explanation?

[Metalogos]

I guess I would answer your question with the Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover argument that was formalized by Aristotle in Book 12 of his Metaphysics and later used by Thomas Aquinas in his famous Five Proofs of God in his most well-known work Summa Theologica.
While I am not religious in any way, and while I find many of Aristotole's arguments impossible to accept, I do find it quite acceptable to concede that it is very difficult to imagine or posit an argument that doesn't attribute some kind of Prime Mover as the origin of the universe. I guess I find it easier to understand that all matter has not been in existence forever with no beginning rather than the obverse. Everything we see in the natural world has a beginning and an end. So it just makes more sense to me, logically, that there must be some ultimate cause for existence and though I certainly don't think human intelligence is even close to a cognition of what that ultimate cause was or is, I can understand why people throughout the ages have tried to identify it.
Finally, I would ask the questioner to give a proof or argument that supports the position that the universe could exist and indeed does exist without an initial cause or Prime Mover. In other words, what is the plausible, natural explanation for the existence of the universe that you seem to refer to? If it is the singularity posited by the Big Bang theory, I would simply ask 'From whence came the singularity?' Be it known that I can accept an argument that would posit that the singularity and the Prime Mover are one in the same. In fact, based on the law of conservation of matter, I would argue that this is indeed a very plausible explanation for the known universe, I.e, God is the universe and the universe is God, or Dog or Mog or Gom or whatever name you want to attach to the Prime Mover.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I guess I would answer your question with the Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover argument that was formalized by Aristotle in Book 12 of his Metaphysics and later used by Thomas Aquinas in his famous Five Proofs of God in his most well-known work Summa Theologica.
While I am not religious in any way, and while I find many of Aristotole's arguments impossible to accept, I do find it quite acceptable to concede that it is very difficult to imagine or posit an argument that doesn't attribute some kind of Prime Mover as the origin of the universe. I guess I find it easier to understand that all matter has not been in existence forever with no beginning rather than the obverse. Everything we see in the natural world has a beginning and an end. So it just makes more sense to me, logically, that there must be some ultimate cause for existence and though I certainly don't think human intelligence is even close to a cognition of what that ultimate cause was or is, I can understand why people throughout the ages have tried to identify it.
Finally, I would ask the questioner to give a proof or argument that supports the position that the universe could exist and indeed does exist without an initial cause or Prime Mover. In other words, what is the plausible, natural explanation for the existence of the universe that you seem to refer to? If it is the singularity posited by the Big Bang theory, I would simply ask 'From whence came the singularity?' Be it known that I can accept an argument that would posit that the singularity and the Prime Mover are one in the same. In fact, based on the law of conservation of matter, I would argue that this is indeed a very plausible explanation for the known universe, I.e, God is the universe and the universe is God, or Dog or Mog or Gom or whatever name you want to attach to the Prime Mover.

IMO the common mistake is that far too many people think that everything that exists today has always existed in its current form. Matter evolves from the simple to the complex. It's a never ending process and matter is still being created that is more complex. The process takes a very long time so we can't observe it in its entirety.

Consider how cosmic hydrogen gas collects itself into a massive ball and then goes nuclear and burns for billions of years, creating new elements within itself over time. Then the star goes through several evolutions, changing from one type into another, each with different characteristics. Is a god entity behind that or is it simply a common natural process?

[Cato]

My biological parents are necessary beings.

[Tartarus Sauce]

This is precisely the problem I have with all ontological arguments as well.

It attempts to place what are inherently subjective beliefs into the confines of an objectively applicable formula, and then to further add onto the railway to disaster, goes the extra mile to declare the conclusion as unavoidable. The resulting presuppositional mess is predictably riddled with as much holes as swiss cheese.

[MindForgedManacle]

The reason why no argument for a necessary being can work is because ALL of them must make a question-begging ontological commitment.

[FifthElement]

Everything we see in the natural world has a beginning and an end.

Let's focus on this for a second ...

Your statement is true within (inside of) natural world, World (or Universe, be that one only or Multiverse) can just exist, forever and ever, easily, without contradicting your statement

[Metalogos]

Fifth Element-"Let's focus on this for a second ...
Your statement is true within (inside of) natural world, World (or Universe, be that one only or Multiverse) can just exist, forever and ever, easily, without contradicting your statement "

Dear FE,
I am interested in keeping the argument fixed in the natural world as that is the only one that we can access with our senses and test our hypotheses against. But even so, I don't understand the reasoning behind your posit. My statement is that everything has a beginning and and end. Yours is that it is possible for a world/universe to go on existing without end. How can you say there is no contradiction between these two statements?

[LostLocke]

I am interested in keeping the argument fixed in the natural world as that is the only one that we can access with our senses and test our hypotheses against.

But asking us to consider a first cause is also going "outside" our natural universe. Unless you're implying this first cause exists inside our universe, in which case it would also be bound to the beginning/end laws of our universe.

So either way, an eternal universe or a first cause of our universe is not going to stay within the realm of our known universe.

[Whateverist]

Just one, I think. Therefore it is me. But I assume the rest of you are just as real and can boast the same.

As for the prime mover thingy .. no way.