A Necessary Being?

[robvalue]

Well sure, it's logically consistent. A "necessary existent being" is just an "existent being". The being either exists or it does not. Unless you're saying it's also invulnerable to destruction or something.

[The Grand Nudger]

Numbers, rob, numbers are a necessary being in this context.  That's the kind of necessary being he's referring to (I hope).

[Aoi Magi]

Something is necessary implies it has a purpose, and if by definition it has to exist, then there is nothing inherently wrong about it existing so long as the purpose exists.

[robvalue]

Yeah...

Remind me what the point of this is?

A necessary magic tomato which burps the national anthem while spinning multiverses through its pips is logically consistent, if you're allowed to just make up whatever you want.

[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 that a Necessary Being exists. I am simply wondering if the very concept of a Necessary Being is logically impossible.

No need to apologize and I personally have no judgement against that sort of activity.  I just prefer to do it in private with porn.

[robvalue]

I'm not at all worked up. Just laying down my shiznitz. Keeping it realzies.

[robvalue]

I'd be a bit concerned if there was something I believed existed, but it was still up for discussion where it's even possible such a thing existed.

[quip]

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 that a Necessary Being exists. I am simply wondering if the very concept of a Necessary Being is logically impossible.

doesn't that fall under Prime Mover 101?

[TheMuslim]

Well sure, it's logically consistent. A "necessary existent being" is just an "existent being". The being either exists or it does not. Unless you're saying it's also invulnerable to destruction or something.

By "Necessary Being," , I obviously don't simply mean "an existent being." By "Necessary Being," again, I mean "something which cannot not exist."

Me and you are existent beings, but we are not "Necessary Beings." It is possible for me and you to not exist, or to have not existed (we, indeed, did not exist at the time of dinosaurs). Existence is only predicated to us once we find out that we actually exist in the real world.

A "Necessary Being," however, unlike me or you, cannot not exist. Existence is in the very definition of a Necessary Being. That is what philosophers mean when they speak of a "Necessary Being."

[Aoi Magi]

I'm not at all worked up. Just laying down my shiznitz. Keeping it realzies.

philosophy and reality do not always go hand in hand.