A Necessary Being?

[Mister Agenda]

Is there anything wrong with a Necessary Being per se?

Is there really anything incoherent or illogical about the very concept of a Necessary Being? In other words, can anyone come up with reasons why a Necessary Being is impossible? Or have we now accepted that it is certainly possible for there to be a Necessary Being?

By "Necessary Being," I mean something that cannot not exist. In other words, "existence" is in the very essence/definition of that thing.

'Not impossible' is an awfully low standard for taking something seriously.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I can see from this thread that no one seems familiar with the traditional understanding of the concept "necessary being". Unfortunatly I do not have time to fully explain and can only point the OP to the third way of Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. To the OP, I think you are on the right track with both this thread and the other you started on existence and essence. The two concepts are interdependent. The essence of a necessary being must be the same as its existence (way 2) and must be fully in act (way 1)

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh good god, back to pretending you have a philosphical understanding or belief that no one else gets?

[Whateverist]

No need to get all worked up, fellas. I did not say or imply anything about whether a Necessary Being actually exists. In this thread, I am not trying to prove or assert that a Necessary Being exists. I am simply wondering if the very concept of a Necessary Being is logically impossible.

Its pretty simple, if there were no necessary being there would now be nothing.

Oh well there you go.  

News flash: for those of us who find defining things into existence peculiar in itself, turning around and declaring everything we know first hand is actually owing to this fob you've defined is entirely Loony Tunes.

[The Grand Nudger]

I find it ironic that in the same breath that our "philosopher" friend there decries the lack of understanding that others have displayed towards the concept he goes on to validate their positions in that regard by making the same silly ass claims they were railing against.....that have nothing to do with the concept itself.

[wiploc]

You honed in on the question and didn't mindlessly sidetrack with puerile rants. I applaud you for that.

Thanks.  

You, however, failed to differentiate between two different types of predication, just like Anselm and Kant did (or, shall I say, because Anselm and Kant did). There is a difference between "essential predication" and "accidental predication."

1. I don't know what you're talking about.  
2. (Your parenthetical jab is completely wrong.)
3. Was this your example of a puerile rant sidetrack?  Don't answer that.  

... if a Necessary Being exists, it must exist in all possible worlds.

Necessary things--if they exist at all--exist in all possible worlds.  I'm with you.  

So it is indeed possible for the Necessary Being to not actually exist.

In fact, at least if we're talking about gods, it is necessary that they not exist.  

However, once we find out that it exists, its definition would imply that it exists in all possible worlds (not just ours); it would imply that this known Necessary Being is eternal and did not ever not exist (and will not ever not exist), because it cannot not exist.

I think you overstate your case.  Let us posit a necessary taco by the name of Lucy.  And let us posit universe Q37, which lasts only for ten minutes before mysteriously blinking out of existence.  If Lucy exists in any possible world, it has to exist in Q37 for that entire ten minutes, right?  But that doesn't mean that Q37 has to be infinite, unending, and unbegun.  

So the Necessary Being is not necessary in the sense that it must exist in the real world. It's necessary in the sense that if it exists, it must exist in all possible worlds - because that is in its definition. So once it is known that it exists, all possible worlds must have it.

Agreed.  

I hope you understand the point I am trying to make. When looked at from this proper perspective, there really is nothing contradictory about the mere concept of a Necessary Being.

Okay.  I wasn't calling the concept contradictory.  My point was just that they don't exist.  

And just for the record, I do not believe that the modal ontological argument is sound.

I've shown that it is not.

Anselm confuses essential predication with accidental predication; his argument is nothing more than an essential predication of existence to a concept.

I don't understand that.  (Note that this doesn't call for a response.  We don't want to get mindlessly sidetracked with puerile rants.) 

Here's one of Plantinga's versions of the modal ontological argument:

Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Here, the same logic proves that god does not exist. 

Premise 1: It is possible that God does not exist.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God does not exist in some possible worlds, then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Here, the same logic proves that god does not exist. 

Premise 1: It is possible that God does not exist.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God does not exist in some possible worlds, then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

Premise 3 does not follow. If you have ten rooms and only one hasn an apple in it then the apple exists. But if instead all but one do not have and apple then an apple still exists...in the one that does not not have an apple.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're not using the modal hook consistently, Chad. Do you not understand the modal argument, what it is and how it works? To say that premise three does not follow is to say that the equivalent premise 3, which is the modal hook in arguments that end with "therefore god exists"... does not follow. Except that you want it to follow...so much so that you're willing to propose that an apple exists in a room you just stated an apple does not exist in.

[The Grand Nudger]

For those interested but befuddled.  The modal operator in question states that what is true of x in a possible world is true of x in all possible worlds.
(I know, I know, gibberish....but this is philosophy we're talking about - it's basically advanced gibberish against the backdrop of game theory)

[Whateverist]

For those interested but befuddled.  The modal operator in question states that what is true of x in a possible world is true of x in all possible worlds.
(I know, I know, gibberish....but this is philosophy we're talking about - it's basically advanced gibberish against the backdrop of game theory)

Oh for god's sake.  Don't call it philosophy.  I majored in that stuff and encountered no such gibberish.  Of course I fell very far short of reading everything and I did read a few lulu's ..


End of sentence hidden to keep my word about with-holding judgement.  (That just became 10 times harder thanks to Wooterman.)

---

.. just nothing so gibberish-y as this crap.  Oops.

---