A Necessary Being?

[wiploc]

Is there anything wrong with a Necessary Being per se?

If you mean to ask whether something like that could exist, the answer is no.  

A necessary thing is a thing that exists in every possible world, but some possible worlds don't include necessary things.

We know this by definition:  A possible world is any world that doesn't include any logical contradictions (think square circles and married bachelors).  There is nothing contradictory about worlds without necessary beings.  Therefore, such worlds are, by definition, possible.  

Since some possible worlds don't include necessary beings, there can't be a necessary being in every possible world.  Yet that is the definition of necessary being: "a being that exists in all possible worlds." 

So, 
1. the NB must (by definition of "necessary") exist in every possible world if it exists at all, and
2. the NB does not (by definition of "possible world") exist in every possible world.  

Therefore, necessary beings do not exist.  

Is there really anything incoherent or illogical about the very concept of a Necessary Being?

I have trouble with transworld identity.  I am skeptical of the concept, at least as explained by Plantinga.  I am not in a position to call it incoherent, but I remain skeptical.  

But, again, if what you're really asking is whether one could exist, the answer is no.  

In other words, can anyone come up with reasons why a Necessary Being is impossible?

Yes.  See above.

Or have we now accepted that it is certainly possible for there to be a Necessary Being?

It is not possible.  It is impossible.  It can't happen.  It would be logically self-contradictory.  There is no possible world in which a necessary being is possible.  



===

Can anyone show what exactly such a being would be necessary for?

We're talking about something that cannot logically not exist.  Or, in possible-world-speak, it exists in every possible world.  That's all we're talking about.  Said a third way, we are refuting the modal ontological argument. 

That's all that's being discussed here.   Angles are "necessary" to triangles in the sense that an angle-less triangle would be contradictory.  We aren't talking about something necessary in the sense of being needed.  We're talking only about something that cannot logically fail to exist. 

===

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.

Purpose is not in issue.  A radius is necessary to a circle, but that doesn't mean the circle has purpose.  The question before us is whether a god can be "necessary" to all possible worlds in the same sense that a radius is necessary to a circle.  Purpose doesn't come into it.