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]

[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]