Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists

[Mark Charles Compton]

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.

I was just providing the ideas of previous theological conceptions that our ancestors held which counter at only order can produce order. It's not a position I hold, it is a position that has been held and through revival of the ideals are possibly held again today by particular sects of individuals.

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.

1st Law of Thermodynamics
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the interaction of heat, work and internal energy, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, under any circumstances.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative.

3rd Law of Thermodynamics
The 3rd law of thermodynamics will essentially allow us to quantify the absolute amplitude of entropies. It says that when we are considering a totally perfect (100% pure) crystalline structure, at absolute zero (0 Kelvin), it will have no entropy (S). Note that if the structure in question were not totally crystalline, then although it would only have an extremely small disorder (entropy) in space, we could not precisely say it had no entropy.

en·tro·py
[ˈentrəpē]
NOUN

1. physics
   a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system:
   "the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"
   disorder · disarray · disorganization · disorderliness · untidiness ·
2. (in information theory) a logarithmic measure of the rate of transfer of information in a particular message or language.

Definition source: the top of Bing search bar for "definition of entropy". :-/ laziness prevails

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Ever hear of impermanence?

Nothing lasts forever including stability and order as much as instability and chaos.

I suppose there is a fundamental aspect of existence; but even that is likely to undergo those same dynamics.

 

[F1fan]

The fact that they are organized, complex, and highly functional.

And?

Also, the fact that chaos cannot produce anything but chaos.

Who says the Big Bang was chaos? You just made a point that the laws of physics can cause order.

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.

Why assume there is such a purpose? Why not just the laws doing their thing with the energy that exists?

Ask yourself this: did this mystery your mind produces exist 5 billion years ago? If you say no (which is the only answer) this mystery is likely something your mind is looking for that isn't evident. The actual mystery is why your observations aren't matching up with the religious views you'v e adopted from other people. Hmmmm.

 

[osgart]

Being is not "Necessary Being".

" Necessary being " means what is necessary for existence about being? Is there being that is necessary for existence. That's how I took it.

For something to exist what is necessary, iow.

I suppose you can take it a different way. For existence to exist what is necessary for that existence? So perhaps the universe is that necessary being required for existence to exist; having independent existence.

I think the power of existing, and what constitutes existence is a deep question. But that may be a different question that relates to necessary being.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Then the universe isn't chaos, because order exists.

 

[PureX]

Then the universe isn't chaos, because order exists.

That order is the result of the specific limitations imposed on the way the energy from which existence springs could and could not be expressed. So the question that cannot be avoided, here, is: what is the source of those specific limitations? What is the purpose? (If there is a purpose beyond 'existence', itself.)

 

[F1fan]

That order is the result of the specific limitations imposed on the way the energy from which existence springs could and could not be expressed. So the question that cannot be avoided, here, is: what is the source of those specific limitations? What is the purpose? (If there is a purpose beyond 'existence', itself.)

Describe these specific limitations for us. And what do you mean that they are imposed?

 

[Kooky]

The only "necessary" being is Me.

Indeed. If we employ Descartes' method of radical doubt, and strip away anything that could conceivably be doubted, then the only undoubtable thing that remains is the fact of our own existence.

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

Yes, I believe a necessary being exists, as per the Cartesian statement cogito, ergo sum.
For me to hold this conversation, it is necessary that I exist.

 

[firedragon]

" Necessary being " means what is necessary for existence about being?

No. A necessary being, is something that exists no matter what situation obtains. It's non-existence at any time would be impossible. So, for example, a necessary thing cannot be assembled or dismantled. It cannot come into existence or snap out of existence. A necessary being cannot exist in any other way.

I suppose you can take it a different way. For existence to exist what is necessary for that existence? So perhaps the universe is that necessary being required for existence to exist; having independent existence.

No. The universe is made out of parts, and anything that's made out of parts is contingent. The universe can exist in other ways or it can not-exist. So it cannot be a necessary being.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

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

How pathetic! Anyone with even a basic level of reading comprehension would know hat I was saying that no one has ever presented ME with a reasonable argument. But even if you SOMEHOW misunderstood, I've corrected you half a dozen times now, yet you STILL persist in childishly claiming that I said I aware of every single argument made on the subject in the history of mankind. What compels you to repeatedly misrepresent what I've said? Are you incapable of conversing in an honest manner? Your posts indicate that you aren't.

then dismiss them all as "not reasonable" if you don't even know what being means in this topic?

Good grief! YOU are the one who made a claim about a necessary being, so YOU are the one who should provide the definition. I couldn't care less how anyone else defines the term. YOU made the claim so I only care about how YOU define it. Yet getting you to provide a definition was like pulling teeth... and THEN you whine about how I should have somehow already known what YOUR definition would be.

Attempting to have a reasonable discussion with you has turned out to be a complete waste of time. I'm done.

 

[firedragon]

How pathetic!

Good grief! YOU are the one who made a claim about a necessary being

See above, I said "Being" which you didnt know the meaning of. "Necessary being" is two words. "Being" is one word. You didnt know the meaning of it.

But you claim "I have seen all the arguments and everything is wrong". But you didnt even know the meaning of the word "being".

What is pathetic.

 

[LIIA]

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?

Yes, without the non-contingent being, no contingent being is possible.

1) Definitions:

A) Possible being :
- Do not exist necessarily by its own nature.
- Contingent being.
- Caused being (a manifestation of an influence exerted by a cause).
- Has a beginning (didn’t always exist).
- May change due to Interaction with other entities within an environment.
- Relative (not self-defined).

Examples:
All observable entities within the universe fit in this category, the entire universe as a being with a beginning (didn’t always exist) about 14 billion years ago, is also a contingent being.

B) Necessary being:
- A being that exists by virtue of its mere essence.
- Non-Contingent being.
- Brute fact.
- Always exists.
- Unchangeable.
- Absolute.

Examples:
Nothing directly observable in our realm fits in this category. Nonetheless, the observable realm of contingent existence is a manifestation of the necessary existence.

2) Logic:

All possible existence has to be rooted in the necessary existence. All relative entities must be grounded in the absolute.

Observations:
-Our entire realm of observable known existence is composed of continuous chains of causally dependent entities. Every link in the chain is caused by the preceding link.

Question:
-What is the cause/reason, for the existence of the entire chain?

Answers:
A) an infinite regress of causes/effects of possible beings (no beginning).
B) a necessary being is the ground/origin of all possible existence.

Conclusion:
Answer A is not acceptable for the following reasons.

Logical reasons:
- Infinite regress is a logical fallacy.
- Regardless of how long is the chain of possible beings, the entire chain will always remain a contingent being and its instantiation in reality would not be explained.

Scientific reasons:
- Infinite regress necessitates a “Steady State”. A universe that always exists with no beginning. The “Steady State” has been abandoned in favor of the Big Bang theory that identifies a specific beginning of the universe and spacetime about 14 billion years ago. It’s a point of instantiation of the universe in reality beyond this point, all laws of physics, as we know it break down and cease to have any meaning.

Answer B is the only logical option, Infinite regress is a fallacy, the contingent existence can only be explained by the necessary existence. The nature of the necessary existence is beyond any possible knowledge that can be attained within the physical realm.

To summarize, since all items in the entire chain of causally dependent entities of known existence (within our realm) are contingent beings (i.e., “things which do not exist necessarily by their own nature”), then the chain itself remains a contingent being, and there must be a reason that explains its instantiation in reality. The ultimate reason for the instantiation of such a chain of contingent beings must be a being whose existence is not contingent (for otherwise, the chain will remain contingent and its instantiation in reality would not be explained). The existence of the chain of causes and effects is only possible as long as the entire chain is grounded in a being, which exists by virtue of its mere essence.

3) What do we know about the non-contingent (necessary) being?

Logically:
-All possible/contingent entities are caused by the necessary being.
-Possible entities exert an influence on each other down the chain but it does not affect the necessary being.
-The necessary being is unchangeable and not subject to any limitation or any influence of any kind.
- The nature of the necessary being is not like anything contingent.

Scientifically:
- The universe didn’t always exist, i.e., not necessary, the first effect known in our realm is the Big Bang, beyond which there is nothing physical. (Only the necessary/non-physical existence.)
- As a non-physical being, the necessary being cannot be observed directly; only the manifestations of the necessary being can be observed.
- Example, the gravitational field cannot be seen but we understand its existence only through the observation of its manifestations such as an apple falling with specific acceleration. The gravitational field itself (as a contingent being that started after Big Bang) is a manifestation of the necessary being. We cannot see the necessary being but we can only see his manifestations in all contingent entities.
- The necessary being is logically eternal, non-contingent and unchangeable. Knowledge of his specific nature is not possible to be attained but we can only understand his attributes through the manifestations of his being in the observable realm. The nature/magnitude of these manifestations is indicative of attributes of power, intelligence and grandeur beyond limits.