RE: Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?
August 10, 2012 at 4:13 pm
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2012 at 4:17 pm by Categories+Sheaves.)
(August 10, 2012 at 3:52 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: What is existence necessary for? Why is a being necessary to spread it? To what end?Do you want a lecture on how modal operators work?
(August 10, 2012 at 3:52 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: The invalid assumption you make is that existence is necessary. You have made no attempt to back this up.I'm not the one making that claim. But if you're going to announce CliveStaples' link's arguments to be dead in the water, I'm going to insist that you kill them properly.
(August 10, 2012 at 3:52 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: If existence itself is necessary then it follows that the existence of certain being would be necessary. I would of thought you'd jump at the chance.This is backwards imo. If A necessarily exists then something necessarily exists (e.g. A, at the bare minimum). If something must exist it's not true that there is one thing that necessarily exists; maybe it's necessary that either A or B exists, (but not necessarily one or the other) in which case we still don't obtain a 'necessary being'.
(August 10, 2012 at 3:52 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: This seems very poorly thought out.I know that feel bro.
(August 10, 2012 at 4:00 pm)Shell B Wrote: I'm surprised that so many people are able to answer entire posts from Clive. It is virtually inevitable for my mind to wander after about one paragraph of, "But it's logic. Don't you like logic? I do, because I can use a superficial facsimile of it to prove that I am smarter than every atheist on the planet. I cannot believe you do not care about logic and think that the suspiciously capitalized Necessary Being is referring to gods."If I'm an atheist who likes logic, whose side am I on?
