Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Cyberman]

And as has been pointed out, you don't even get a result, cool or boring. All you get is a short comment confirming that you either accept the possibility of a Necessary Being, or that you don't, or a condescending "Never mind, these questions are hard and I don't blame you for not knowing how to answer them", followed by an open invitation to retake the survey. I've seen much more interesting surveys and tests linked on Facebook - at least with those you get to know what Star Wars character you most resemble, how many kids you're having with which celebrity, or how you're going to die.

[CliveStaples]

The whole thing positively reeks to me of the slimy tactics employed by the even slimier Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind and their cohorts; get your opponent to set out their positions regarding their beliefs and then use weasel questions in an attempt to trap them into a seemingly logically inconsistent corner. Victory is then declared. I enter into evidence People's Exhibit A, m'lud: https://atheistforums.org/thread-12138-p...#pid268652

As for wanting to know the implications of my beliefs, remember I am an atheist. As far as the question of gods etc - including Necessary Beings - is concerned, I have no beliefs. Thus I do not recognise the burden.

There is no burden. You aren't being asked to support anything. You're just being asked about what you believe--whether you believe that certain statements are true.

There are no "weasel" questions here. If you agree with the statement in question, you can say so; if you disagree with the statement, you can say so; if you don't have an opinion one way or the other, you can say so.

For example, the first question on the survey is:

1. Is there a Necessary Being?

The responses are:

"It seems so", "It seems not", and "I can't say".

Are you really so obtuse that you can't recognise satire when you see it, or is it all just an act for my benefit? Consider that the survey necessitates at least one person taking it. Thus by definition that person, as far as the survey is concerned (a phrase that obviously went clean over your head the first time round) is a Necessary Being.

As far as the survey is concerned, a "Necessary Being" has properties (1) and (2). You're just equivocating on what "necessary" means.

[Napoléon]

I put I can't say for pretty much everything.

I didn't get an answer :/

[Cyberman]

Ok, let's try a little experiment. Let's see how far the survey gets with nobody answering the questions. Then we'll decide on which definition of Necessary Being is more relevant... then perhaps you'll learn what the phrase 'taking the piss' means. (Christ, talk about pulling teeth!)

[CliveStaples]

And as has been pointed out, you don't even get a result, cool or boring. All you get is a short comment informing you that you either accept the possibility of a Necessary Being, or that you don't, or a condescending "Never mind, these questions are hard and I don't blame you for not knowing how to answer them", followed by an open invitation to retake the survey. I've seen much more interesting surveys and tests linked on Facebook - at least you get to know what Star Wars character you'd make, how many kids you're having with which celebrity, or how you're going to die.

Uh, what? I got a logic proof:

Congratulations! Your answers (or a subset of them) appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that there is a Necessary Being.
Here's how:

I will first show that a Necessary Being is possible:
1. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that a Necessary Being is not possible.
2. It is possible for there to be something that has a cause. (by your report)
3. Therefore, it is possible for a contingent thing to have a cause. (by 1 & 2)
4. Therefore, it is possible for being contingent to have an instance that has a cause. (by definition of 'instance' & 3 [note 1])
5. It is possible for there to be a beginning of the existence of all contingent things. (by your report)
6. Therefore, it is possible for being contingent to begin to be exemplified. (by definition of 'begin to be exemplified' & 5)
7. Therefore, being contingent is such that (i) it is possible for it to begin to be exemplified and (ii) it is possible for it to have an instance that has a cause. (by 4 & 6)
8. For any property meeting (i) and (ii) above, it is possible for there to be something that causes that property to begin to be exemplified. (by your report)
9. Therefore, it is possible that something causes being contingent to begin to be exemplified. (by 7 & 8)
10. It is not possible for a contingent thing to exist prior to a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'prior to': otherwise a contingent thing would exist while there are no contingent things, which is contradictory [note 2])
11. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause a beginning of all contingent things. (by definition of 'cause' & 10)
12. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause being contingent to begin to be exemplified. (by definition of 'begin to be exemplified' & 11)
13. Therefore, it is possible for there to be something that is not contingent that causes being contingent to begin to be exemplified. (by 9 & 12)
14. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a Necessary Being. (by definition of 'Necessary Being' & 13).
15. (14) contradicts (1).
16. Therefore, (1) is not true. (no true statement implies a contradiction)
17. Therefore, a Necessary Being is possible.
[note 1] You may translate 'property talk' into talk of instances of properties. For example, you may translate 'being contingent has instances' to 'there are contingent things'.
[note 2] To be clear, the 'all' in 'all contingent things' doesn't rigidly designate any particular contingent things: a beginning of all contingent things is an event in which there first begins to be some contingent things (where no contingent things previously existed).
I will now show that if a Necessary Being possibly exists, then one actually exists. To begin, recall (from your report) that if X and Y are each possible, then if X were actual, Y would still be possible (for any X and Y). In other words, a possible situation would be possible no matter what might happen to be actual. Therefore, whatever is possible is necessarily possible (by definition of 'necessarily such and such'). Call this principle 'the necessity of possibility' (which is also known as S5).

The deduction using the above principle is well known. Below is one way to spell it out.
Let '~' abbreviate 'it is not the case that'.
Let '◊' abbreviate 'it is possible that'.
Let '□' abbreviate 'it is necessary that' (or '~◊~').
Let 'N' abbreviate 'there is a Necessary Being'.
The deduction now proceeds as follows:
1. ◊ N.
2. So: ◊□ N. (by definition of 'N')
3. So: □◊□ N. (by the necessity of possibility)
4. So: ~◊~◊~◊~ N. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
5. So: ~◊□◊~ N. (by substituting '□' for the middle '~◊~')
6. So: ~◊◊~ N. (because □A implies A)
7. So: ~◊~ N. (because ◊◊A implies ◊A)
8. So: □ N. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')

◊◊A implies ◊A:
1. ◊◊A.
2. So: ◊□◊A. (by the necessity of possibility)
3. So: ◊~◊~◊A. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
4. So: ◊~◊~◊~~A. (because A implies ~~A)
5. So: ◊~◊□~A. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
6. So: ~◊□~A. (because ◊~◊A implies ~◊A)
7. So: ~◊~◊~~A. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
8. So: ~◊~◊A. (because ~~A implies A)
9. So: □◊A. (by substituting '□' for '~◊~')
10. So: ◊A. (because □P implies P)

◊~◊A implies ~◊A:
1. If ◊A, then □◊A. (by the necessity of possibility)
2. So: if ~□◊A, then ~◊A. (by modus tollens)
3. So: if ~~◊~◊A, then ~◊A. (by substituting '~◊~' for '□')
4. So: if ◊~◊A, then ~◊A. (because ~~P implies P)

That doesn't seem like a 'short comment' to me.

My responses were:

1. (I can't say.) Is there a Necessary Being?

2. (I can't say.) Can anything be entirely inside of itself?

3. (It seems so.) Can there be a contingent thing that has no cause?

4. (It seems so.) Can a possible event be impossible to cause?

5. (It seems so.) Is it possible that there is anything that has a cause?

6. (It seems so.) 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. (It seems so.) Is a beginning of the existence of all contingent things (such as in a Big Bang) possible?

8. (It seems so.) 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?

Note: I am not asking if X and Y are jointly possible.
For example, a three-sided figure is still possible even if there happen to be no three-sided figures.

[Cyberman]

Re: result breakdown: No, you're quite right, my bad on that.

[CliveStaples]

I put I can't say for pretty much everything.

I didn't get an answer :/

The results of hypothetical answers can be interesting too, I think.

Suppose that X, Y, and Z imply that a Necessary Being exists. If you're going to believe that no Necessary Beings exist, then you'll have to reject at least one of X, Y, or Z. So the discussion about whether Necessary Beings exist can in some sense be 'reduced to' whether X, Y, and Z are true.

[Annik]

Whoever wrote this survey needs to do a little research into leading questions.

[Cyberman]

I would like to know a little about this survey. For example, is it an actual survey or one of those logical convolution tests akin to the FB ones I mentioned? The reason I ask is that genuine surveys usually give information about their purpose, who is gathering the data etc. I see no such here, which is one of the alarm bells that initially triggered my automatic Ackbar.

[Jackalope]

I would like to know a little about this survey. For example, is it an actual survey or one of those logical convolution tests akin to the FB ones I mentioned? The reason I ask is that genuine surveys usually give information about their purpose, who is gathering the data etc. I see no such here, which is one of the alarm bells that initially triggered my automatic Ackbar.

Here's one of the culprits.