Can anyone provide an argument for a necessary being?
April 20, 2014 at 3:11 am
(This post was last modified: April 20, 2014 at 3:12 am by Rampant.A.I..)
I've seen the classical arguments, but every argument for a necessary being seems like an appeal to ignorance.
An unfalsifiable premise doesn't seem rational. Perhaps this is the reason I have problems with ontological arguments: they all seem to be appeals to ignorance, with a deus ex thrown in as the explanation.
So my challenge is: can anyone provide a cogent and compelling argument for a necessary being?
Why we can't we contemplate a necessary being without concluding it exists, without resulting to the same appeals to ignorance that resulted in Thor, God of Thunder and Lightning?
How would a being or entity be necessary in the absence of a plausible natural explanation?
An unfalsifiable premise doesn't seem rational. Perhaps this is the reason I have problems with ontological arguments: they all seem to be appeals to ignorance, with a deus ex thrown in as the explanation.
So my challenge is: can anyone provide a cogent and compelling argument for a necessary being?
Why we can't we contemplate a necessary being without concluding it exists, without resulting to the same appeals to ignorance that resulted in Thor, God of Thunder and Lightning?
How would a being or entity be necessary in the absence of a plausible natural explanation?
