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?
Not 100% sure I understand the question or full argument either.
But correct me if I got it wrong, but basically what you mean is something like this right? (Not related to evolution, just used as an example)
For a thing to exist, lets say a chicken, we can't have a chicken produce a chicken. Meaning the first chicken must have come or developed from something that we wouldn't refer to as a chicken as we know it, and this thing would equally have come from another being etc. And as we continue going back, something have or could exist, which had no first cause but is a necessary being from which all other beings or things came from. Whether they are atoms, lifeforms or whatever.
Is that correct or did I misunderstand it?
If I got it right, I have myself played with the idea, mostly in regards to the multiverse idea, because I do not think that it explain what the cause is for these multiverses is in the first place. So even though one could reach the conclusion that if enough Universes were created eventually we could find one like ours, it do however not seem to explain where those came from in the first place.
In that regard, I played with the idea that this necessary "being" is existences it self, whatever such thing might be. Simply because it is the most simple state something can be in. Either something exist or it doesn't.
And given that something exist rather nothing, it could be the foundation from which everything else comes from, because it contain everything and it is impossible to create existences itself, because it is a state rather than a thing. If nothing (true nothing) existed, obviously there would be nothing to bring anything into existences.
But if existences as a state is true, then its in a state of
"is" or it is in a state of
"Is not" there are no other possibilities. However I do not see a need for this to be an actual being rather than something else. Because if it is a being and such thing is intelligent, have emotions etc. It is no longer a simple thing, but a rather complex and guided thing and to me it seems unlikely that such being would be the default or necessary being. Simply due to that. I personally prefer the most simple explanation, which is that it is unguided and without purpose, intentions, feelings or intelligence behind it.
It is merely a state from which all other things exist in or are brought into existence from as a result. Meaning that however this might work, it will not make humans in their final forms come into existences, but whatever building blocks we might find in the Universe or Universes would be a result of what this existence is capable of, so even atoms etc. might not be the foundation, but also merely a result of what the existence is capable of.
In that regard, I could buy into the idea of a necessary being, but I don't buy it as a complex God being.
