(August 30, 2016 at 3:13 am)TheMuslim Wrote: Let's say I define a triangle as "a shape that has three sides." Now, whether or not a triangle actually exists in the real world - this is not the realm or the concern of the definition. The most that the definition can imply is that if a triangle exists, it must have three sides.Why must a necessary being exist in all worlds?
Similarly, when I define a Necessary Being as "a thing that exists in all possible worlds," my mere act of defining does not intend to imply that a Necessary Being actually exists in all possible worlds. The most that its definition can imply is that if a Necessary Being exists, it must exist in all possible worlds.
So it is indeed possible for the Necessary Being to not actually exist. However, once we find out that it exists, its definition would imply that it exists in all possible worlds (not just ours); it would imply that this known Necessary Being is eternal and did not ever not exist (and will not ever not exist), because it cannot not exist.
Triangles are well defined because they actually exist. They can be demonstrated. That's why we can define them with "three sides".
A necessary being is just someone saying, "I think this about it, therefore that is the reality about it.", but without any ability to demonstrate that that is actually the "reality" of a necessary being.
I can say, "A necessary being can exist in some realities, but also not exist in other realities.", and I have exactly as much evidence to back that claim up as a person who says a necessary must exist in ALL realities.
