I've read the recent posts, and again, I'm very grateful for the feedback. If there is a "bait-and-switch" somewhere, I will certainly want to fix that. Just to be clear, the term 'Necessary Being' is ultimately defined in terms of 'thing', so I don't perceive any equivocation there. But if there's still a problem somewhere else that I've missed, I hope to fix that. For what it's worth, I used the term 'being' only because of historical precedent (where 'being' does not imply intelligence, etc.), but I appreciate the worry that it could have that connotation. It's not my intent to mislead, or to make a case for theism. I would be happy if the website helps people to see that a number of potentially attractive causal principles are ultimately false (or problematic) insofar as they entail a necessary concrete thing, which they have reason to deny. Others might find in the website a reason to incorporate necessary material things into their ontology. My own thinking about necessary things doesn't really enter into my reasons for collecting data about other people's views. My goal is to learn from others and test out ideas (and adjust my thinking accordingly).
Again, thanks for the valuable input. I appreciate the skeptical reactions and comments, since they convey a desire for intellectual integrity.
Again, thanks for the valuable input. I appreciate the skeptical reactions and comments, since they convey a desire for intellectual integrity.
