| lehmar |
| Posted 08/10/12 at 12:01 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
http://www.necessarybeing.net/
Here's a nifty survey about people's beliefs regarding necessary beings. Enjoy! |
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 08/10/12 at 11:59 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
I looked at it but don't like the set-up. I can only see one question at a time so it's hard to know what they mean or what is behind the set-up. If the questions were normal it might be different, but "It is possible for something to be entirely inside of itself?"
What does that even mean? I am a skin-bound entity so in a way I am inside of myself. And I assume you're not much different. My dog is the same. Yet the very fact that the question is asked suggests something else is meant. But what???
I guess you'd have to be a student in a very specific branch--or school--of philosophy in order to even understand and do the quiz. The people who get into that branch/school of philosophy probably mostly agree that there is a necessary being. If that is the case, then the survey is too biased to work.
Anyway, I only answered the first question--which did not have an option I agreed with. When I saw the second question (more or less as quoted above) with no way around it except choosing an option, I quit the program. It said the survey tracks answers. I didn't want it tracking answers that just reflected my random guesses. |
| Loading... | |
| lehmar |
| Posted 08/10/12 at 12:18 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
Yup, I found that question vague too, so I just answered "I can't tell".
But what do you find wrong about the first question? Perhaps you're being too suspicious about the survey. Yup, there could be bias, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the results of the survey. Perhaps it's because they are specialists in that branch of philosophy that we should trust them regarding the issue. Or at least we should give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying you should agree to what they say. I'm just saying you should probably be more open and charitable about the survey. |
| Loading... | |
| lehmar |
| Posted 08/10/12 at 12:24 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
But yeah, if you don't understand the concepts involved, you probably won't understand the end of the survey. Oh well  |
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 08/10/12 at 10:28 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lehmarBut yeah, if you don't understand the concepts involved, you probably won't understand the end of the survey. Oh well
My problem with the first question was not the question but the options for answers. If I remember correctly they were:
- It seems so.
- It does not seem so.
- I can't tell.
I wanted a straightforward "No," but settled for "It does not seem so." "It does not seem so" suggests I have no evidence to back up my position, no proof, when in fact I do.
Not understanding the end results was not my biggest problem. Not understanding the concepts was a much bigger problem. I like to understand the questions I answer so that I can give informed answers and take responsibility for them. Defend them if called upon. Being led by the nose into dim and dusky corners is not my idea of fun and adventure. I find it threatening and better to get out of such situations. I have never met the composers of the survey so I have no reason to trust them. I'm not sure why you want anyone to take the survey. |
| Loading... | |
| lehmar |
| Posted 08/12/12 at 09:44 AM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Fair enough
For the sake of discussion, why think the answer to the first question is no? Why think there is no necessary being? |
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 08/12/12 at 12:22 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lehmarFair enough For the sake of discussion, why think the answer to the first question is no? Why think there is no necessary being?
- I don't understand the concept that anything must of necessity exist.
- Necessary being is defined on that survey as "something that (i) can cause something, and that (ii) must, by nature, exist.
All of those terms seem loaded with philosophical jargon. Used in the way we do in ordinary language, it is not necessary for anything to exist by its very nature. That would presuppose existence of something. Existence is not a given so far as I can observe the universe, based on my personal experience and the observation of many before me. I am talking about people who provide empirical evidence for their observations.
There are many thousands, even millions, of testimonies about supernatural events throughout history. But not a single empirical piece of solid data exists to prove that these events actually happened the way they are reported to have happened. There are, however, psychological and neurological explanations for why people may have sincerely thought these things happened.
The human imagination is immense. Shared imagination is larger than the universe. I attend regular meetings with writers of fiction and fantasy. We spend two hours of serious discussion about characters nobody has ever seen or will ever see. We use their names and speak about them as though they were real in order to help each other improve our stories. I am completely comfortable with that.
My story is a real life situation set twenty years ago. I am working with a local person who is in the profession of my protagonist. Recently, this professional brought me an annual report of the organization for the year my story is set in so I can get a better feel of the time. I opened the cover and saw all these photographs. You know what? I found myself eagerly looking for my protagonist, subconsciously thinking that finally I was going to see what he really looked like. Then I was brought up short by reality. These photographs were of real people who existed twenty years ago. My protagonist existed only in my imagination.
While my protagonist's existence is absolutely necessary to the story--without him there would be no story, he does not actually exist in the real life empirical world you and I can see and touch and walk in. Nor does he have a brain or a body or a will. He is nothing but the figment of my imagination. Yet at our meetings we will spend fifteen to forty-five minutes talking about him and what he said, did, and should be doing. Also, without me he would not exist. I am necessary for his existence. But I am not a necessary being at all.
My life could be wiped out the next time I cross the street with my dog. Or I could be struck down by lightening before I got to the street. If that happens, chances are my dog will perish, too, because without me there is no one to feed it and care for it. But the rest of you and this forum will continue to go on even if I, my dog, and my protagonist perish in the next hour.
Theists, not only Christians, think without a god there would be no world/universe/cosmos. But we don't know that. No one has proved that to be true. It seems to me that if it really were true it would be impossible to find evidence of any other possible origin. This is not the case. Even if there were no other possible evidence, we still would not know that it was the Judeo-Christian God who caused the world to exist. It could be any of the thousands of other creators humans have told about. Or none of them. Logic tells us this.
For my position re evidence for no god see my posts on Why is belief from one side wrong? |
| Loading... | |
| lehmar |
| Posted 08/12/12 at 08:56 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin- I don't understand the concept that anything must of necessity exist.
- Necessary being is defined on that survey as "something that (i) can cause something, and that (ii) must, by nature, exist.
All of those terms seem loaded with philosophical jargon.
First of all, being unable to understand a concept isn't a good objection to an argument. All it shows it that you need to study and reflect some more. You might as well object to a complex math equation by saying you don't understand it, but that doesn't say anything about whether the equation is correct or not.
Secondly, "being loaded with philosophical jargon" isn't a weakness. Philosophical terms try to sharpen the meanings of the everyday words we use, so that our arguments and points can be made with more clarity. What's wrong with trying to be precise and trying to avoid misunderstandings?
Thirdly, prima facie, "cause" "nature" and "exist" seem like everyday words. At least, many people would use them in everyday settings. But let's not argue whether they're everyday words or philosophical words - the main question is - why think a necessary being doesn't exist? We can argue this using vague everyday words or precise philosophical words, but I think it's better to be precise.
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Used in the way we do in ordinary language, it is not necessary for anything to exist by its very nature.
Your first statement is vague - who is "we" here? Many people I know use "cause" "nature" and "exist" in everyday settings in such a way that we can use those words to form an argument for the existence of a necessary being. So it's your population vs. mine. Do you suggest we take a survey on what people mean by those words? Besides being impractical, I don't think this will help, for the issue isn't about linguistic usage of these words, but what can be deduced from the meanings (everyday or not) of those words.
Perhaps we can start by asking this - what is wrong with the use of those words in the survey? If you say the problem is that they are used philosophically, then my question is - what's wrong with that?
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
That would presuppose existence of something.
Well, if one believes that there is a necessary being, then obviously it follows that you believe a necessary being exists. So I'm not sure what you mean by this. Besides, isn't it obvious that something exists?
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Existence is not a given so far as I can observe the universe, based on my personal experience and the observation of many before me. I am talking about people who provide empirical evidence for their observations.
What do you mean by existence not being a given? Do you mean nothing exists? Please clarify.
I'm not sure how observation and empirical evidence are relevant to the survey's arguments. The survey uses metaphysical arguments - they don't depends on observation and empirical evidence.
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
There are many thousands, even millions, of testimonies about supernatural events throughout history. But not a single empirical piece of solid data exists to prove that these events actually happened the way they are reported to have happened. There are, however, psychological and neurological explanations for why people may have sincerely thought these things happened.
This is irrelevant. We are asking whether a necessary being exists or not. We are not asking whether the God or Absolute of any particular religion exists. Just because a necessary being exists, it doesn't follow that any of these Gods of exist.
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
Theists, not only Christians, think without a god there would be no world/universe/cosmos. But we don't know that. No one has proved that to be true. It seems to me that if it really were true it would be impossible to find evidence of any other possible origin. This is not the case. Even if there were no other possible evidence, we still would not know that it was the Judeo-Christian God who caused the world to exist. It could be any of the thousands of other creators humans have told about. Or none of them. Logic tells us this.
Again, this is irrelevant, for we asking about a necessary being, not about any God. Even if a necessary being exists, it doesn't follow that any God exists, much less does it follow that the Christian God exists. |
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 08/12/12 at 09:24 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
| Sorry, lehmar, but if this is the way you treat an honest in depth answer to your questions then I cannot continue the conversation. The entire thing was meant to hang together as a single answer. You pulled it apart and treated separate statements and paragraphs as supposed to stand on their own. That was not my intention. You have to read the whole in light of the whole to understand the whole. I think my position is clear for those who wish to understand. |
| Loading... | |
| lehmar |
| Posted 08/14/12 at 10:18 AM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
I do understand what you said in your post, and I appreciate your comments on fictional characters. Unfortunately, most of your post was completely off-target in its criticisms. The issue here is whether a necessary being exists or not. The issue wasn't whether God exists or not. Your criticisms apply to the second issue, not the first. I hope you see the difference between those two issues.
If that's cleared up, and you're still up for a discussion, then we can go back to the original question - why think a necessary being doesn't exist? |
| Loading... | |
| einstein89 |
| Posted 08/14/12 at 12:08 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
| A necessary being is one whose non-existence would be a contradiction. Given that no beings non-existence would lead to a contradiction, clearly the answer is no. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 08/14/12 at 12:28 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: A necessary being is one whose non-existence would be a contradiction. Given that no beings non-existence would lead to a contradiction, clearly the answer is no.
This...makes absolutely no sense. It is true that a necessary being would exist in all possible worlds, but to say that no beings non existence would lead to a contradiction is you appealing to contingent beings as proof that a necessary being doesn't exist which is just....not correct in any conceivable way. That's like saying an immortal person is impossible because mortal persons die. |
| Loading... | |
| einstein89 |
| Posted 08/14/12 at 12:36 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Huh? That would make no sense, but I'm not appealing to contingent beings. I'm saying that there has not been a good case put forward for a being (any being, indeed) whose non-existence would lead to a contraction.
For example, if you think a lack of a first cause would lead to a contradiction, why must this first cause be a 'being'? |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 08/14/12 at 12:52 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Huh? That would make no sense, but I'm not appealing to contingent beings. I'm saying that there has not been a good case put forward for a being (any being, indeed) whose non-existence would lead to a contraction.
For example, if you think a lack of a first cause would lead to a contradiction, why must this first cause be a 'being'?
Mathematical numbers are necessary abstract concepts whose non-existence would equate to a contradiction.
Also the necessity for a metaphysically necessary eternal being comes deductively, as it is logically required to exist when you consider the impossibility of a past infinite regress of causal events.
Also you asking why it needs to be a "being" shows that you lack an understanding as to what philosophers mean when they discuss a "being". A being is nothing more than a thing which could operate as an efficient cause, or a "thing" in general. The word you're looking for is "intelligent entity", which is also arrived at deductively by noting that not only is a metaphysically necessary being required to terminate the past infinite causal chain, but that necessary being must be infinite as an eternal and unintelligent cause can only give rise to an infinite effect.
The only way an eternal cause can bring about a finite effect is if that cause is intelligent, or cyclical. Seeing as we have no time prior to time it cannot be cyclical when you consider that time is a logical requirement for successive iterations of creation, and as such, we arrive logically at the conclusion that not only is a metaphysically necessary terminator of the past infinite chain of causal events required, it's also logically required to be intelligent. |
| Loading... | |
| belorg |
| Posted 08/14/12 at 12:59 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lawlessone777Quote: A necessary being is one whose non-existence would be a contradiction. Given that no beings non-existence would lead to a contradiction, clearly the answer is no. This...makes absolutely no sense. It is true that a necessary being would exist in all possible worlds, but to say that no beings non existence would lead to a contradiction is you appealing to contingent beings as proof that a necessary being doesn't exist which is just....not correct in any conceivable way. That's like saying an immortal person is impossible because mortal persons die.
So, what are you waiting for? Prove that the non-existence of God leads to a contradiction. |
| Loading... | |
