Tiberius
Well-Known Member
it is for Catholics, since it's the only way they can have Mass.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
it is for Catholics, since it's the only way they can have Mass.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I am not in this for insults En Masse.
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
Lower the Mas(t)s! There's a storm-a-brewin'!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we consider what firedragon posted:
The Higgs Field, like @Tiberius mentioned in his joke, is the 'thing that exists' (being in philosophy) which provides mass to all the particles. This allows them to coalesce and combine into the matrix of matter that we recognize in our universe. Add Einstein's mass - energy equivalence (E=MC²) and that means the Higgs is the progenitor of energy within the universe... I think that's how it works? Quantum physics gets wonky when pushed to the limits, so I could have this wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we consider what firedragon posted:
The Higgs Field, like @Tiberius mentioned in his joke, is the 'thing that exists' (being in philosophy) which provides mass to all the particles. This allows them to coalesce and combine into the matrix of matter that we recognize in our universe. Add Einstein's mass - energy equivalence (E=MC²) and that means the Higgs is the progenitor of energy within the universe... I think that's how it works? Quantum physics gets wonky when pushed to the limits, so I could have this wrong.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Lower the Mas(t)s! There's a storm-a-brewin'!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we consider what firedragon posted:
The Higgs Field, like @Tiberius mentioned in his joke, is the 'thing that exists' (being in philosophy) which provides mass to all the particles. This allows them to coalesce and combine into the matrix of matter that we recognize in our universe. Add Einstein's mass - energy equivalence (E=MC²) and that means the Higgs is the progenitor of energy within the universe... I think that's how it works? Quantum physics gets wonky when pushed to the limits, so I could have this wrong.
Being is not "Necessary Being".
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
Oh. Until your retort I had no idea there was an underscored meaning behind that phrase: "Never came into existence and will never cease to exist"...
In that case, the Higgs does not fit the bill. Apologies.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Because in my opinion no one has presented a reasonable argument for why such a being would be necessary.
#17QuestioningMind, Today at 2:51 AM
Its true that you have to hear a valid argument for anything. Just dont say that no one ever has made a valid claim unless you have heard all of them ever made in the history of mankind.
Why would you possibly assume that when I said 'no one has presented a reasonable argument' that I was claiming no one in the history of mankind has ever presented such an argument, as if I somehow knew every argument that's ever been made? That's ridiculous. How could I possibly claim that an argument I've never heard isn't reasonable? Since I was responding to why I didn't see any need for this 'necessary being' it should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of reading comprehension that I was saying no one has presented me with a reasonable argument. I even asked you what your argument for the necessity of this being was so that I could judge how reasonable I think it is, yet you persist in trying to suggest that I said I've already heard all the arguments ever made in the history of mankind. That's just blatantly dishonest.
Even so, let's take a look at what you wrote in post #8 and let's see if I think you have a valid argument for why I should believe in this necessary being.
Nevertheless, a Necessary being has a fundamental definition of that this being does not exist and will not exist in any other way. All other beings can exist in other ways that it is already existing as. Thus that makes the necessary being necessary. It has to exist for other beings to exist, and will not exist in any other way but as it is. #8
Okay, so you're saying this is a being. First off I'd need to know what definition of 'a being' you are using. Possible definitions are: 1 · the state of having life or existence ; 2 · a living thing ; 3 · an entity believed to be divine. So is this necessary being a living thing or some entity that some might consider to be divine?
But then you say that this is an unchanging being and since all living being do change, you apparently are referring to some divine being. Okay, so we have an unchanging being that some might consider divine, unlike all other beings that do change. Unfortunately I see absolutely no reason why I should consider your next claims are true. Why is it necessary to have the existence of an unchanging being in order for other changing beings to exist?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Very good. So you admit you have not heard all the arguments though you said "Because in my opinion no one has presented a reasonable argument for why such a being would be necessary.".
No problem.
Anything that exists.
Not necessarily divine. Divine or not is a whole different argument. For this particular topic, divinity is irrelevant.
See, I did not make an argument for it to be true. I was only defining it. And someone asked for "A" argument, and I presented a very basic, grade 1 level argument just to illustrate. Hope you understand that.
Nevertheless, you dont even have an idea what a being is in this whole argument, but you said "Because in my opinion no one has presented a reasonable argument for why such a being would be necessary.". How could you ever read so many arguments to make this claim, understand it fully, then dismiss them all as "not reasonable" if you don't even know what being means in this topic?
If you want a justification for the necessary being, no problem. I can provide something and you can refute that. It's not that simple to do so in a few words. But maybe I can give you a very basic argument. There are many arguments.
Something or other exists. What ever can possibly fail to exist has to have had a cause. Contingent reality requires a necessary foundation.
1. For any particular contingent concrete things, there is an explanation of the fact that those things exist.
2. Considering all the contingent beings, if there is an explanation of the fact that they, then there is a necessary being.
3. Therefore, there is a necessary being.
Thats the most basic p to q.
Last edited:
I've seen "necessary beings" asserted two different ways:
1. Rationally but uselessly: arguing that a necessary being either exists or is impossible. This gets us absolutely nowhere if we aren't in a position to say whether the thing is impossible.
Instead of "this being either exists or not," you get "this being is either impossible (which means it doesn't exist) or not (which means it does)." It's just a ling-winded way of adding absolutely nothing to establishing whether the being exists or not.
2. Irrationally: arguing that a being that is "necessary" has existence as an attribute and therefore exists. It's begging the question, and when people take this approach, I dismiss them as either dishonest (if they know what they're doing) or without a firm grasp on the argument they're making.
That definition strikes me as a basketful of claims that you're trying to pass off as attributes of a thing.
I would say something, or some things have always had to have existed.
firedragon
Veteran Member
That is one of the definitions of the necessary being on topic.
I agree with that definition.
PureX
Veteran Member
The fact that they are organized, complex, and highly functional. Also, the fact that chaos cannot produce anything but chaos. It required order (strategic limitations within the chaos) to produce order. And the mystery to us is the source (and purpose) of those strategic limitations.
How do you know this?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. I don't see how any being would be regarded as a nessessity anyways in wake the universe works fine enough as it is.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Order always falls back to chaos, so it's really a moot analogy.
Mark Charles Compton
Pineal Peruser
Excerpt:
"Chaos
Greek Gods / Chaos
Chaos was – most Greek cosmologies tell us – the very first of all, the origin of everything, the empty, unfathomable space at the beginning of time. But, it was more than just a gaping void – as its name is usually translated from Ancient Greek. Personified as a female, Chaos was the primal feature of the universe, a shadowy realm of mass and energy from which much of what is powerful (and mostly negative and dark) in the world would stem forth in later genealogies."
Source: https://www.greekmythology.com/Other_Gods/Chaos/chaos.html
firedragon
Veteran Member
Why?
PureX
Veteran Member
That makes no sense at all. First, no it doesn't. And existence is proof that it doesn't. And second, even if it did, that still wouldn't negate the fact that chaos cannot, by itself, produce or maintain anything by chaos. In fact, it cannot even logically exist by itself because existence is an expression of order.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
I fail to see the relevance of ancient Greek mythological stories to the fact that it is not logically possible for chaos to produce or sustain anything but chaos.Excerpt:
"Chaos
Greek Gods / Chaos
Chaos was – most Greek cosmologies tell us – the very first of all, the origin of everything, the empty, unfathomable space at the beginning of time. But, it was more than just a gaping void – as its name is usually translated from Ancient Greek. Personified as a female, Chaos was the primal feature of the universe, a shadowy realm of mass and energy from which much of what is powerful (and mostly negative and dark) in the world would stem forth in later genealogies."
Source: https://www.greekmythology.com/Other_Gods/Chaos/chaos.html