A Necessary Being?

[Arkilogue]

Yes, using the term 'being' begs the question. Logical fallacy 101. Hence theistic philosophers argue for a 'necessary cause' and layer theistic arguments from there. That takes you on to a whole heap of different problems.

But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you a 'Necessary Being'. How could you tie that Deistic concept to any specific theistic concept?

Substitute "thing" for "being."

Then (1) he's not begging the question on that word, and (2) there are no deistic implications. 

I used to have the same problem, but, over time, I've become convinced that they usually aren't smuggling a person into the conversation disguised as a "being."  All they mean is "thing." 

So, presumptively, TheMuslim isn't being tricky here.  And if it turns out that I'm wrong about that, then we can call him on it when he plays that card.

But what about space? Is it a "thing" or a "being"? Perhaps space might even be the "Necessary being"?

If there is absolutely no space, there can also be no matter to occupy it.
If there is no space for a world to exist in...no worlds can exist. In order to have a world it must take up space. Space is the necessary being.