A Necessary Being?

[wiploc]

I thought we were getting on well, but now suddenly you're all arrogant and insulting.  




I wonder if you don't just enjoy dressing up simple concepts in abstruse language.  Your first sentence was clear and succinct.  Your second sentence is redundant where it's not wrong.  The third sentence is a waste of words.  




"Essentially existent," nice.  And above, "by definition cannot not exist," also nice.  What do you think you're adding to that with your predication talk, your imperative, extremely relevant (as if that were a concept), and crucial predication talk?   




You're saying it is defined as existing even thought it doesn't happen to exist.  

In addition, you're saying I need lessons so I can talk fancy like you.  While I appreciate your concern, Plantinga and William Lane Craig get along fine without your terminology.  I choose to refute them using their own words.  




Now you've just confused yourself with your tricksy talk.  If a necessary being doesn't exist in one possible world, then it doesn't exist in any possible world.

I used the official terminology (the way it is used in academic philosophy writing) because it made it easier and pithier for me to express myself than repeatedly using the phrases "predicated as definition, or what it itself is" or "something which the thing happens to be in the real world." This is the reason why people use academic terminology at all, regardless of the field: to express ideas in a more succinct way. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Official terminology?  What office are you talking about?  

You were a being a jerk when you ordered me to learn your obscure terminology.  I don't believe that your terminology is easier, clearer, or more succinct.  I don't even believe you are a pithy wit.  

If you're willing to get back to the merits of the subject at hand, I'm willing to do that.  

You're saying that since there are possible worlds in which a Necessary Being does not actually exist, a Necessary Being - defined as something which exists in all possible worlds - cannot exist.

Exactly.  

This is fallacious reasoning, because you are presupposing that there are indeed "possible worlds" in which there are no Necessary Beings. You're playing the same card that many theists often mistakenly play. Why not be honest and admit that we simply don't know?

Now you're calling me dishonest?  You insufferable twit.  Are we done here, or are you going to straighten up?  


[/quote]