A Necessary Being?

[Whateverist]

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

I used the official terminology ..

I think the word you're looking for where I've bolded is "jargon".

[The Grand Nudger]

In your second post on this thread, you yourself provided two arguments - of identical logical form - that argue for and against the existence of a Necessary Being. If I'm correct, your reasoning against the possibility of a Necessary Being is based on the latter of those two arguments. If that is the case, then you are doing some pretty obvious cherry-picking. Since both use the exact same logic, why pick the latter over the former? You can't conclude that a Necessary Being is impossible with that kind of inconclusive logic.

...as has been mentioned over and over, god and a necessary being are not - necessarily, the same thing - god is simply a candidate for the designation.  The argument he presented was an argument that concluded that -god- did not exist.  Obviously, something that doesn't exist can't be a necessary being.  Now, it's amusingly true that the modal form is inconclusive in this regard in that it can just as easily prove that god does or doesn't exist.  That;s probably why it;s unconvicing as an argument for god, regardless of whether or not necessary beings exist.

There's no reason to capitalize it, btw, it's not a proper noun, lol.  We're talking about things like Numbers and Propositions, after all....aren't we? 

[Whateverist]

Just because I thought it fit here.

Though the chain of arguments … were ever so logical, there must arise a strong suspicion, if not an absolute assurance, that it has carried us quite beyond the reach of our faculties, when it leads to conclusions so extraordinary, and so remote from common life and experience. We are got into fairy land, long ere we have reached the last steps of our theory; and there we have no reason to trust our common methods of argument, or to think that our usual analogies and probabilities have any authority. Our line is too short to fathom such abysses.

David Hume on the Limits of Reason

http://afterall.net/quotes/david-hume-on...of-reason/

[wiploc]

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




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.  




"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?   




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.  




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.

I used the official terminology (the way it is used in academic philosophy writing) because it made it easier and pithier for me to express myself than repeatedly using the phrases "predicated as definition, or what it itself is" or "something which the thing happens to be in the real world." This is the reason why people use academic terminology at all, regardless of the field: to express ideas in a more succinct way. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Official terminology?  What office are you talking about?  

You were a being a jerk when you ordered me to learn your obscure terminology.  I don't believe that your terminology is easier, clearer, or more succinct.  I don't even believe you are a pithy wit.  

If you're willing to get back to the merits of the subject at hand, I'm willing to do that.  

You're saying that since there are possible worlds in which a Necessary Being does not actually exist, a Necessary Being - defined as something which exists in all possible worlds - cannot exist.

Exactly.  

This is fallacious reasoning, because you are presupposing that there are indeed "possible worlds" in which there are no Necessary Beings. You're playing the same card that many theists often mistakenly play. Why not be honest and admit that we simply don't know?

Now you're calling me dishonest?  You insufferable twit.  Are we done here, or are you going to straighten up?  


[/quote]

[Neo-Scholastic]

The fact that I exist means that my biological parents went from contingent beings to necessary beings when I drew my first breathe. The obvious consequence, that someone mentioned early on, is that you are now faced with an infinite regression.

An accidentally ordered sequence of efficient causes could extend into the infinite past of an eternal universe. Where infinite regress becomes a problem is with respect to any essentially ordered series. I presented this interpretation of Aquinas here (debate).

To quote that post - "The members in an essentially order sequence exist because of ontologically dependency. This stands in contrast to a temporal and accidental series.
Gavin Kerr illustrates the ontological relationship as (v-->(w-->(x-->y))) and a temporal series as (v-->w)-->(w-->x)-->(x-->y).* Remove the unchanged changer/first cause/necessary being and all dependent members of the essentially ordered series disappear. Thus every essentially ordered series is sustained by a first member."

The only alternative to having a first member is an impossible infinite regress.

[wiploc]

The only alternative to having a first member is an impossible infinite regress.

What makes an uncaused first member more possible than an infinite regress?

[Whateverist]

The only alternative to having a first member is an impossible infinite regress.

What makes an uncaused first member more possible than an infinite regress?

I'm going to go with preferred belief confirmation.

[Cyberman]

The only alternative to having a first member is an impossible infinite regress.

What makes an uncaused first member more possible than an infinite regress?

Basically it boils down to "The thing I'm trying to argue existence for has to exist, otherwise the argument doesn't work."

[bennyboy]

I think a lot of this comes down to my experience of existence. In my experience, 100% of reality is both subjective and objective-- there's a perfect duality there between me the experiencer and whatever is being experienced. In fact, 0% of what I know (unless you call instinct knowledge) is knowable outside that subject/object duality.

I'd say, with no other knowledge than that, that some kind of Deity or eternal mind is a reasonable candidate.

Most people now take the material objective universe as fact, and many of those categorize mind, even though its subjective, as a byproduct or correlate of that objective "reality." (quotes not because it's not true, but because it's not philosophically proven/provable). From that perspective, a lack of Deity might at first seem sensible. But it seems to me that modern physics (google "quantum eraser experiments") really makes it hard to discard the subjective perspective as nothing more than a byproduct-- it may be something that is intrinsic to the fabric of reality.

If so, and this is not mere speculation but an inference from the most modern science, I'd say we could go back to some kind of mental agent being intrinsic to cosmogony.

[robvalue]

The only alternative to having a first member is an impossible infinite regress.

What makes an uncaused first member more possible than an infinite regress?

Exactly, yes. People like to assert, "There can't be an infinite regress."

Why not? Because you say so? Because it doesn't make sense to you?"

The best they can do is extrapolate from local observations into the unknown, which is unrealiable, and then they commit the fallacy of composition as they try and apply it to reality itself.

It shows some people cannot accept the limits of our investigation.