No, the idea of a "necesary being" is logical nonsense.
Chris.....you are trying to dismiss with a wave of your hand something which has been and still is a very active branch of philosophy. It's called "Essentialism" and is has been discussed in great detail by people like Quine and Kripke. Some people think essentialism doesn't make sense, but they have to go to quite some lengths to prove their point. They don't just wave their hands and say "nonsense". I think there may be more meat to this topic than you are currently aware of. "Naming and Neccesity" by Kripke is one of the most important philosophical texts of the 20th century.
The whole question of why there is something rather than nothing is motivated by the fact that the existence of the universe is clearly not necesary.
Again, this isn't as simple as you make out. It is clear that the existence of any individual object is not neccesary. But it is not clear that the existence of the whole Universe is not neccesary. Bertrand Russell famously argued that just because we can apply a property like contingency to individual parts it does not follow that we can apply it to the whole. For example: A wall is made of bricks. Each brick is small, and made of brick. The property "made of brick" also applies to the whole wall. The property "is small" does not. It is not clear whether the property of "is contingent" is transferable to the whole from the parts. We do not currently know how "the whole of the universe" is related to the parts.
These are all arguments borrowed from theology, for goodness sake. Of course they are idiotic.
Chris, the whole of the theology is not idiotic. Some of it is. Most of it that you get exposed to at a site like this is. But the theology Paul Tillich, for example, is not. You are correct. I am using arguments from theology, but they are also arguments that have an impact on theological philosophy and I'd appreciate if you'd address the arguments themselves instead of trying to claim that the whole subject of theology is "idiotic". It's not as simple as that.
They are designed to arm the faithful with rhetorical devices to counter skeptical arguments and thus save their souls.
Just as the equally idiotic arguments in favour of materialism are rhetorical devices to counter metaphysical arguments and prevent the materialist from facing up to the fact that his/her position is actually untenable and illogical....
I'm amazed that you take them seriously. I thought you were smarter than that.
Well maybe you would not be so amazed if you had encountered some of the people who have explained them to me. In the last year I have taken two courses run by the most senior philosopher at my University - those two courses were metaphysics and philosophy of religion. The person who ran those courses was called David Smith and is a world authority on both these subjects, having studied them for his doctorate at Oxford.(
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/philosophy/profile155814.html)
"Not taking him seriously" simply wasn't an option. He is possibly the most intelligent and well-educated person I have ever met. Many of his students are simply dumbstruck by the amount of knowledge he carries in his head. So please don't say "I thought you were smarter than that." I am nothing like as smart as Smith. Not even close.
I am not arguing from authority here. I am trying to get you to understand that not everyone who takes philosophy of religion seriously is a fool.
Far from it.
