Flilix said:
'Necessary being' sounds kinda vague, but it's a start of a definition. Do you believe that that being was only necessary for the origin of the universe, or also for its development? |
In the Cosmological Argument, we are all contingent beings. That means humans are both movers (beings that can act and move/influence others) and moved (we ourselves are also influenced and our actions also depend on prior actions). This could be seen as a giant chain of cause and effect, in which we are both determined and determiners. This chain however, can't go on for all eternity. At the start of the chain, you need a being which moves, but isn't moved itself. Otherwise you'd get a causel infinity (which is the traditional Christian argument) or a temporal infinity (which is the traditional Islamic argument). Both are impossible in the past (actually, even scientifically impossible). This being which moves, yet isn't moved is thus not a contingent being, but a necessary being. Aspects of a necessary being are that if it exists, it could not not exist (since it is necessary) and if it doesn't exist, it wouldn't be able to come into existance (since then it would be a contingent being).
That's the Cosmological Argument is a compressed manner.
