A Necessary Being?

[Arkilogue]

Yes, using the term 'being' begs the question. Logical fallacy 101. Hence theistic philosophers argue for a 'necessary cause' and layer theistic arguments from there. That takes you on to a whole heap of different problems.

But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you a 'Necessary Being'. How could you tie that Deistic concept to any specific theistic concept?

Substitute "thing" for "being."

Then (1) he's not begging the question on that word, and (2) there are no deistic implications. 

I used to have the same problem, but, over time, I've become convinced that they usually aren't smuggling a person into the conversation disguised as a "being."  All they mean is "thing." 

So, presumptively, TheMuslim isn't being tricky here.  And if it turns out that I'm wrong about that, then we can call him on it when he plays that card.

But what about space? Is it a "thing" or a "being"? Perhaps space might even be the "Necessary being"?

If there is absolutely no space, there can also be no matter to occupy it.
If there is no space for a world to exist in...no worlds can exist. In order to have a world it must take up space. Space is the necessary being.

[Whateverist]

You majored in philosophy....Whatevs?  I never knew.  All the art history spots were taken or something?  

I know, right?  Not to mention the garden design degrees.  Hmm.  Maybe I'll get one of those in some other possible world.  

It was my bad luck to be influenced by a very woo ridden drug enhanced philosophy instructor at a JC so I went to Cal as a philosophy major.  Went in full of woo; came out with my speech and writing devoid of metaphors.  Did pretty good but got my fill.  I shall philosophize no more forever.  Luckily for you lot I still shoot from the hip for free though.

[Whateverist]

Yes, using the term 'being' begs the question. Logical fallacy 101. Hence theistic philosophers argue for a 'necessary cause' and layer theistic arguments from there. That takes you on to a whole heap of different problems.

But for the sake of argument, I'll grant you a 'Necessary Being'. How could you tie that Deistic concept to any specific theistic concept?

Easily.

Well sure, you did it.  But I'm pretty sure he meant in a convincing manner employing valid arguments.

[Arkilogue]

Easily.

Well sure, you did it.  But I'm pretty sure he meant in a convincing manner employing valid arguments.

What is there to argue? The legends say what they do and they are easy enough to look up for oneself. The concept is there.
Are you asking me to prove them right?

[TheMuslim]

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.

It is imperative (and extremely relevant) to acknowledge the difference between "essential predication" and "accidental predication." If you are ignorant about these terms, read up on them.

A Necessary Being, by definition, cannot not exist. It must exist at all times, places, and worlds. But it is crucial to note that by saying this, I am predicating existence to the Necessary Being as an essential predicate, not as an accidental predicate.

It is impossible to predicate nonexistence to a Necessary Being as an essential predicate, because that would be a contradiction (a Necessary Being is, essentially, existent).

However, it is indeed possible to predicate nonexistence to a Necessary Being as an accidental predicate. This would not lead to any contradictions (a Necessary Being has existence predicated to it as an essential predicate, not as an accidental predicate, and therefore denying its existence as an accidental predicate does nothing to harm it).

So one may conceive of a possible world with nonexistence predicated to the Necessary Being as an accidental predicate. This does not mean that a Necessary Being does not exist, because Necessary Beings do not even require existence in all possible worlds as an accidental predicate in the first place.

[Whateverist]

I enjoy the legend of Mighty Mouse as much as the next fiction appreciator. But .. yes. Justify what they say if you think you can.

[Arkilogue]

I enjoy the legend of Mighty Mouse as much as the next fiction appreciator.  But .. yes.  Justify what they say if you think you can.

Ever watch Danger Mouse? That was classic British humor.


What I can distill them all down to, tossing out all anthropomorphizing, is infinitely spatial substance that takes up all available space as a (scalar) field of mater in equilibrium.

So I would look into quantum physics to see if they are having to deal with re-normalizing for infinity to a single discrete motion/measure (1) in a scalar field (value but no direction). They do, all the time.

So I figure its a good place to start.

---

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...ion-layman

I mean, even trying to explain QM in layman terms is horrible. In essence, renormalization has no use of "simple terms", but if you want to be very vague, then you can say "well if you take an infinite quantity, and divide it by infinity, it's not necessarily infinity anymore and can be a finite number"... and that's what renormalization "kind of does". – Chris Gerig Jan 9 '12 at 22:35

Pretty much what I've been saying.

[Edwardo Piet]

I saw Danger Mouse as a small child.

[Arkilogue]

I saw Danger Mouse as a small child.

Freakin Penfold always messing things up...

[wiploc]

It is imperative (and extremely relevant) to acknowledge the difference between "essential predication" and "accidental predication." If you are ignorant about these terms, read up on them.

I thought we were getting on well, but now suddenly you're all arrogant and insulting.  

A Necessary Being, by definition, cannot not exist. It must exist at all times, places, and worlds. But it is crucial to note that by saying this, I am predicating existence to the Necessary Being as an essential predicate, not as an accidental predicate.

I wonder if you don't just enjoy dressing up simple concepts in abstruse language.  Your first sentence was clear and succinct.  Your second sentence is redundant where it's not wrong.  The third sentence is a waste of words.  

It is impossible to predicate nonexistence to a Necessary Being as an essential predicate, because that would be a contradiction (a Necessary Being is, essentially, existent).

"Essentially existent," nice.  And above, "by definition cannot not exist," also nice.  What do you think you're adding to that with your predication talk, your imperative, extremely relevant (as if that were a concept), and crucial predication talk?  

However, it is indeed possible to predicate nonexistence to a Necessary Being as an accidental predicate. This would not lead to any contradictions (a Necessary Being has existence predicated to it as an essential predicate, not as an accidental predicate, and therefore denying its existence as an accidental predicate does nothing to harm it).

You're saying it is defined as existing even thought it doesn't happen to exist. 

In addition, you're saying I need lessons so I can talk fancy like you.  While I appreciate your concern, Plantinga and William Lane Craig get along fine without your terminology.  I choose to refute them using their own words.  

So one may conceive of a possible world with nonexistence predicated to the Necessary Being as an accidental predicate. This does not mean that a Necessary Being does not exist, because Necessary Beings do not even require existence in all possible worlds as an accidental predicate in the first place.

Now you've just confused yourself with your tricksy talk.  If a necessary being doesn't exist in one possible world, then it doesn't exist in any possible world.