Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[CliveStaples]

Are you aware of why it's foolish to conflate logical argument and mathematical proof?

No, since logic is a subset of mathematics. Are there mathematical proofs that aren't logical arguments?

---

Rasmussen makes it quite clear what he means by Essential Being, whether by definition or logical gymnastics makes no difference.

I've played this survey, several times. I can make it come out each of the three ways merely by picking options at random. None of this maps onto anything tangible and I'm not interested in logic for logic's sake. I do enjoy logical problem solving for fun, however, the difference being I know for a fact I'm not expected to pretend they're referring to anything real.

But this isn't "logic for logic's sake". It's showing the logical consequences of certain beliefs.

And for the final time, I have no beliefs regarding gods and related detritus. Necessary Beings are a wasted concept on me.

But nobody's asking you about 'gods and related detritus'. They're asking you the following:

1. Is there a Necessary Being?

If you don't have beliefs on the matter, select "I can't say".

2. Can anything be entirely inside of itself?

Is this somehow related to "gods and related detritus"? Do you have no beliefs with regard to whether anything can be entire inside of itself?

3. Can there be a contingent thing that has no cause?

Is this related to "gods and related detritus"? Do you have no beliefs with regard to whether there can be a contingent thing that has no cause?

4. Can a possible event be impossible to cause?

Is this related to "gods and related detritus"? Do you have no beliefs with regard to whether there can be a a possible event that is impossible to cause?

5. Is it possible that there is anything that has a cause?

Is this related to "gods and related detritus"? Do you have no beliefs with regard to whether there is anything that has a cause?

6. Let P be any property that (i) can begin to be exemplified and (ii) can have instances that have a cause.

Is it thereby possible for there to be something that causes P to begin to be exemplified (by causing a first instance of it)?

For example, 'redness' is a property that began to be exemplified. And it can have instances that have a cause (because there can be red things that have been caused to exist). So, an event that causes the first red thing(s) would thereby cause 'redness' to begin to be exemplified.

7. Is a beginning of the existence of all contingent things (such as in a Big Bang) possible?

8. Suppose X and Y are each possible. If X were actual, would Y still be possible (for any X and Y)?

For example, assume unicorns and pegasusi are both possible. Then if unicorns became actual, would pegasusi remain possible?

Do you have no beliefs with regard to the plausibility of any of these statements? Do you believe these statements are related to "god and related detritus"?

---

I'm surprised that people have no beliefs with regard to statements like "Can there be a contingent thing that has no cause" and "It is possible that there is anything that has a cause".

It's like people think there's some sort of deception occurring if they say, "Yeah, I think that it's possible that there is something that has a cause."