Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists

[Polymath257]

You ignored the question. If you wish me to cut and paste the same thing I can.

I was modifying my answer to the OP.

The question of whether the universe is uncaused depends somewhat on how the word 'universe' is defined.

If it means the current expansion phase, then it is *possible* that it was caused, although not certain.

If it means the multiverse as a whole (assuming such exists), then it would be uncaused.

 

[Polymath257]

But would you agree that all entities are contingent upon other entities, and that all events are contingent upon other events?

No. I consider the term 'contingent' to be too vague to be useful. Replace it with 'caused' and the answer is still no.

 

[icehorse]

Does a necessary being exist?

No one knows. I tend to think not, but I'm honest enough to say I don't know for sure.

 

[firedragon]

No, that's why I'm an atheist, I don't believe any supreme being is necessary.

Okay. Maybe you are referring to a different thread. Because this thread did not speak of a so called supreme being.

 

[firedragon]

No one knows. I tend to think not, but I'm honest enough to say I don't know for sure.

Why do you tend to think not?

 

[firedragon]

The question of whether the universe is uncaused depends somewhat on how the word 'universe' is defined.

You said "Almost certainly". So what does that mean? And what is the evidence? That is if you believe in science the way you portray yourself to be with a Phd in mathematics, you claim to be an empiricist. So what is the empirical evidence to be "Almost certain"?

Thanks.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you refute Rasmussen?

I've already answered that in this thread and elsewhere.

Conversation with you has not been profitable for me in the past, so I decline to go down that road with you again. You ask questions, but are not interested in the ideas of others and don't adequately address responses as you just did again, so giving you a better answer than I did would do little for either of us.

You might want to think about what's in it for the other guy to participate in a discussion with you. What do you give him? I'm imitating your style with my answer - so devoid of content that you have to guess just what I mean. You have to guess what aspect of Rasmussen I am referring to just as I did when answering the question about him, and as I had to do with the OP, and you have to guess what part of my response I think answered your question.

There's nothing there for me (or you), so I am done here until you give something back. You never even bothered to confirm whether I had guessed and answered the question you intended. I assume that I did, since you didn't give me your standard one word reply, "irrelevant." That's next, I suppose. What I am sure of is that I won't get a thoughtful reply from you to anything I write. You ask others to give, and you take, but give nothing back of value to anybody but you, and that value being playing the gotcha game, where you ask vague questions until you find a chance to dismiss the other guy.

I just saw your post of a few minutes ago containing, " this thread did not speak of a so called supreme being." That's typical from you. Be vague, then be dismissive when others don't correctly guess what you are asking, or in any way give you an opportunity to make them wrong. Of course the term necessary being invokes a god concept. I also assume that that is what is on your mind and that you are concealing. You're a theist. You specifically mentioned atheists in your title. But now you're being coy just to make somebody else wrong, implying that his comment is so off the mark that he must be thinking of another thread. Like I said, what do think is in it for him for you to interact with him like that?

 

[RestlessSoul]

No. I consider the term 'contingent' to be too vague to be useful. Replace it with 'caused' and the answer is still no.

Contingent as in, defined in relation to.

Whereby all phenomena manifest and exhibit qualities only in relation to other phenomena. Beyond this, entities possess at most, the probability of manifesting in a particular manner, but no independent manifest qualities of their own.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[firedragon]

Conversation with you has not been profitable for me in the past

If you think I open a thread and see some random persons post and provide no reply that's a sad mistake mate.

I just saw your post of a few minutes ago containing, " this thread did not speak of a so called supreme being."

Well it did not. So of course its typical of me or any decent to point out irrelevance to the OP.

Anyway, I think you have just come here to do some ad hominem and that's your only aim. And you have not refuted anything in this thread though you quote an authors name and claim you have refuted him.

So ciao.

 

[PureX]

With all due respect, you have got the whole "Being" thing wrong.

Being in philosophy just means "anything that exists".

Your question was, "Does a necessary being exist? "A being" implies a singular entity, not "anything that exists". If you were not referring to a singular entity of some kind, then I don't understand what you were asking.

 

[firedragon]

Your question was, "Does a necessary being exist? "A being" implies a singular entity, not "anything that exists"

You said "Anthropomorphic being". So I corrected you. There is nothing anthropomorphic about a "being".

A being means "anything that exists". If you wish to clarify, please read a simple book on philosophy and that will clarify you.

There is no point arguing about this. Please don't say "not anything that exists" prior to doing some research. Because you are wrong.

Cheers.

 

[F1fan]

This thread will be directly relevant to atheists, yet also maybe to all theists and those who call themselves agnostic.

If you are an atheist and you are reading this post, what is your epistemic position on this topic? Does a necessary being exist?

This claim is introduced by people arguing for a Creator, so there is an agenda behind this phrase "Necessary being". From the arguments I've seen this phrase is necessary, and the wording in the arguments set the necessity for the argument to work. In essence it is an attempt for theists to force God into existence with words and sentences. They offer no evidence for the conditions the arguments entail, so not valid.

At best these arguments are speculative, not conclusive.

 

[F1fan]

Another alternative to the "necessary being" arguments is can a necessary being be replaced with energy and the laws of physics and still work?

 

[icehorse]

Why do you tend to think not?

A partial answer would include:

- if there was a creator, who created the creator?
- the more we learn about the universe, the more we see what can be created without supervision, given enough time

 

[PureX]

You said "Anthropomorphic being". So I corrected you. There is nothing anthropomorphic about a "being".

I agree. But most humans choose to conceptualize this "necessary being" that way. And that includes most atheists. In fact, in many ways their atheism depends on an anthropomorphic concept of this "necessary being" to justify their rejection of it.

A being means "anything that exists". If you wish to clarify, please read a simple book on philosophy and that will clarify you.

Before you get too arrogant, here, to "be" is to exist. So "being" is the act or state of existing. To conflate the act of being with whatever un-articulated "thing" is perpetrating the act of being is unnecessarily vague and confusing. So is coupling it with the criteria of 'necessity'. Unless you expect us to be mind-readers you're going to have to do a little better at clarifying what it is you want to ask us.

And leave off the pretense of your being some sort of mighty professor of philosophy. Even if you were, saying it does you no favors.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Who's arguments have you read so far. you are making an absolute claim. Have you read every piece of philosophical argument on the subject since time immemorial?

Lets see. At least could you give several philosophers argument and why you think it's not reasonable.

If you think you have an argument that's convincing let's hear it.

And please don't ask if I'm making an absolute claim when I started off my post with 'I suppose it's within the realm of possibility....' It makes me think that you don't even bother to read what I write.

 

[F1fan]

I just saw your post of a few minutes ago containing, " this thread did not speak of a so called supreme being." That's typical from you. Be vague, then be dismissive when others don't correctly guess what you are asking, or in any way give you an opportunity to make them wrong. Of course the term necessary being invokes a god concept. I also assume that that is what is on your mind and that you are concealing. You're a theist. You specifically mentioned atheists in your title. But now you're being coy just to make somebody else wrong, implying that his comment is so off the mark that he must be thinking of another thread. Like I said, what do think is in it for him for you to interact with him like that?

And of course the thread is about a supreme being, because 1. the OP is addressed to atheists specifically, and 2. the phrase "necessary being" is unique to religious arguments for a creator/god/supreme being.

So you are dead on with your criticism.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Because generally people don't relate to arbitrary words. If you wish to understand something you can do a search on the internet or just ask someone. Better than trying to attack the person with a why or why not use a word that you personally like.

What, like you usually do?

 

[Polymath257]

Contingent as in, defined in relation to.
Whereby all phenomena manifest and exhibit qualities only in relation to other phenomena. Beyond this, entities possess at most, the probability of manifesting in a particular manner, but no independent manifest qualities of their own.

Does that make sense to you?

Yes, things are defined by how they interact with other things. How does that make them contingent? It isn't their existence that depends on the interaction, but their identity.

Collections of items exist as aspects of our classification of things. Abstract ideas exist in our minds. But physical things simply exist (like electrons).

 

[PureX]

Another alternative to the "necessary being" arguments is can a necessary being be replaced with energy and the laws of physics and still work?

Not successfully. Doing this tries to replace the fact of existence with the mechanics of it. How a house got built does not explain the house's existence. It's like telling someone that they didn't really see God because they were on an hallucinogenic drug at the time. As if the mechanics somehow nullifies the results.