Posted by Miguel  3/23/2018 4:17 pm | #1 |
Odd question, yes. Here's the issue:
If it is a necessary fact that there can be only one God/necessary being, then it must be so because that necessary being's nature precludes the existence of more than one of its own. But then doesn't it follow that the existence of that necessary being depends on the non-existence of other necessary beings?
If the existence of that nec being implies the non-existence of other nec beings, then in a way, if other nec beings existed then that nec being could not exist. But it exists. But then it means the existence of that nec being is in some way conditional upon the non-existence of other nec beings.
How do we get out of this problem?
I've been thinking that the clause "non-existence of other necessary beings" already presupposes something like "the existence of that necessary being", otherwise it wouldn't be "other" which we're reading here as "additional". If there weren't at least one, that, nec being (God) then there wouldn't be possible for any other *additional* necessary beings to exist; in that sense the multiplicity presupposes the first unit. So the clause "non-existence of other necessary beings" is "the existence of that necessary being and nothing else like it". Then we are saying "the existence of that necessary being is conditional upon the existence of that necessary being and nothing else like it". But if the very nature of that nec being precludes the existence of anything else like it, aren't we just saying that the existence of that necessary being is dependent on its existence? Would that be viciously circular? Or an acceptable circularity if we're talking about a necessary being?
How I got here is a long story. I was developing some arguments about contingent facts and necessary beings, and somehow I ended up here. I'd like to hear answers and thoughts. Maybe it's all just a mess based on some mistake.
|
Posted by Calhoun 3/23/2018 4:32 pm | #2 |
But then doesn't it follow that the existence of that necessary being depends on the non-existence of other necessary beings?
...If the existence of that nec being implies the non-existence of other nec beings, then in a way, if other nec beings existed then that nec being could not exist. But it exists. But then it means the existence of that nec being is in some way conditional upon the non-existence of other nec beings.
A necessary being can not fail to exist, A non existent necessary being is an impossible being. It seems this whole puzzle supposes as if some other necessary being is some possible being.
|
Posted by Miguel 3/23/2018 4:40 pm | #3 |
Calhoun wrote:
But then doesn't it follow that the existence of that necessary being depends on the non-existence of other necessary beings?
...If the existence of that nec being implies the non-existence of other nec beings, then in a way, if other nec beings existed then that nec being could not exist. But it exists. But then it means the existence of that nec being is in some way conditional upon the non-existence of other nec beings.
A necessary being can not fail to exist, A non existent necessary being is an impossible being. It seems this whole puzzle supposes as if some other necessary being is some possible being.
But then the existence of the necessary being still depends on the necessary fact there is only one nec being, no additional nec beings. And the necessay fact that there are no additional nec beings depends on the necessary fact that there is a nec being whose nature precludes additional nec bings. Isn't there a circularity here? Is it vicious?
|
Posted by Ouros 3/23/2018 5:49 pm | #4 |
We need to be careful, to not switch the explanans and the explanandum.
I would say that's because there can only be one nececessary being, in the most absolute sense, wich doesn't need any other thing than itself, that there isn't any other necessary being, and not the opposite.
|
Posted by Miguel 3/23/2018 8:02 pm | #5 |
As an update, I am now convinced there is no vicious circle here, just an iff. And there are clear counter-examples which could be ordered in the same way, like dice rolls.
Last edited by Miguel (3/23/2018 8:02 pm)
|
Posted by surroundx 3/23/2018 10:20 pm | #6 |
It seems to me that if we talk about a "necessary being" then you are presupposing some kind of qualification to the necessity such that it is not clear whether additional necessary beings can exist or not. And thus causing you to question the mutually exclusive grounding of the (first) being's necessary existence. Whereas necessary existence is unqualified and thus not naturally divisible or shareable.
|
Posted by surroundx 3/23/2018 10:34 pm | #7 |
After all, isn't necessary existence properly understood a subject, and so not truly a predicate?
|
Posted by Greg 3/24/2018 1:53 pm | #8 |
If it is a necessary fact that there can be only one God/necessary being, then it must be so because that necessary being's nature precludes the existence of more than one of its own. But then doesn't it follow that the existence of that necessary being depends on the non-existence of other necessary beings?
I think this consequence only seems to be problematic insofar as one equivocates on "precludes" and "depends".*
Compare: Necessarily, there are no square circles. Is that because the axioms of geometry "preclude" the existence of square circles? Does the consistency of geometry "depend on" the non-existence of square circles?
Yes, in the sense that the consistency of geometry implies that there are no square circles. It's misleading to say that the consistency of geometry depends on there being no square circles, just because that use of "depends on" seems to connote that there might have been square circles.
So there is no problem. The existence of God is conditional on the non-multiplicity of necessary beings. (Compare: The existence of God is conditional on the non-existence of gratuitous evil.)
*The phrasing of the first sentence I quoted suggests that an explanation of the fact that there is only one necessary being is being given: there is only one necessary being because its existence precludes the existence of others. That is part of what tempts one to give "precludes" a causal reading. I don't think that the singularity of the necessary being requires that one give a causal explanation of the non-existence of others.
Again, compare: It is impossible to square the circle. If you try to, you will never succeed. If you try to explain your failures in a piecemeal fashion, by, say, pointing out that each square you draw has a different area then the circle you are attempting to square, then you're missing something.
Last edited by Greg (3/24/2018 2:02 pm)
