Why There Can't Be More Than One Intrinsically Necessary Existent Beings?
If there are two intrinsically necessary existent beings or multiple such necessarily existent beings then the
removal of the absurdities discussed could have alternatively
been attributed to either of the two, thus resulting in the other being
dismissible. This contradicts the necessary existence of that other,
whereas we assumed them both to be necessarily existent
For many whatever has been mentioned above should suffice and for those it didn't, please continue reading.
The following can be said about the claim made by a polytheist "There are two intrinsically necessary beings"
If they are similar the following claims can be made about them.1) Both of them are unconscious, lifeless, unintelligent and powerless.
If they are different, the following claims can be made about them.
This is because something would come into existence either:
1) By them: This is contradictory because they are both lifeless, unconscious, unintelligent and powerless.
2) From them: This is contradictory because this entails that both of them are subject to "changes" and it is intrinsically impossible that what is deemed as intrinsically necessary is subject to changes.
Necessary: 1) The mind absolutely does not accept its non-existence. 2) Existent since eternity past 3) Without a beginning or end 3)Always existent. 4) Did not come into existence (uncreated). 5) Does not a require a cause for its existence.
Any change is essentially a beginning and to claim that both of these beings (which are deemed intrinsically necessary) are subject to changes is violation of law of contradiction. Because how could something be such that it is "Intrinsically necessary in existence" and "intrinsically possible" in existence at the same time.
Moreover, change dictates non-existence of previous state of existence and existence of new state of both of these "Eternal beings" and this is absurd because the mind absolutely does not accept non-existence of eternity.
Therefore our claim "Nothing would come into existence" if "Both of them are unconscious, lifeless, unintelligent and powerless" stands true. Therefore it is absurd to claim "Both of them are unconscious, lifeless, unintelligent and powerless" because it contradicts observed reality i.e. our very own existence and refutes the necessary existence of both of them.
2) Both of them are alive, intelligent and powerful.
a) If Being-A willed to create something and Being-B did not want it, Being-B is not all powerful and by definition cannot be Intrinsically necessary and therefore contingent;
b) If Being-B willed to create something and Being-A did not want it, Being-A is not all powerful and by definition cannot be intrinsically necessary and therefore contingent;
c) If Being-A willed to create something and Being-B allowed it (and could have stopped it if he wanted), Being-A’s acts are dependent on Being-B’s permission, and thus Being-A is not all powerful and by definition cannot be intrinsically necessary and therefore contingent;
d) If Being-B willed to create something and Being-A allowed it (and could have stopped it if he wanted), Being-B’s acts are dependent on Being-A’s permission, and thus Being-B is not all powerful and by definition cannot be intrinsically necessary and therefore contingent;
e) If we suppose that both willed to create a single object and its creation took place, that would entail the “obtainment of what is already obtained (tahsil al-hasil),” which is a rational absurdity. (For example, if we suppose that both willed to create a single indivisible particle and its creation took place, that would mean that there are two indivisible particles, not one. And if we supposed that one indivisible particle came into being from their joint act of creation, it would entail the divisibility of something that is indivisible, which is rationally absurd.)
f) If both are similar, then what is true for one is true for the other. So if one is incapable based the scenarios mentioned above, that means that both are incapable, and if both are incapable, both lack power to create anything. If this were the case the nothing would come into existence.
Therefore by rational necessity there cannot be two intrinsically necessary beings who are alive, intelligent and powerful.
If they were different, then they would need specification in terms of which one should have which eternal attribute to distinguish it, which would make them both in need of specification and therefore possible in existence. How could something be deemed as intrinsically necessary and intrinsically possible at the same time? This is violation of the law of contradiction. Moreover what is in need of specification is not intrinsically necessary in existence to begin with.
2)Both of them are alive, intelligent and powerful but different.This is clearly a contradiction because if both of them are equally powerful, intelligent and alive then there is no difference between them.
And if someone deems one of them to be "less powerful" or any of its other attributes to differentiate between each other, then by logical necessity it would not be "intrinsically necessary" in existence to begin with and therefore contingent.
Note: If someone claims that this argument proves "why there can't be more than one intrinsically necessary being" and it does not prove "why there can't be three or more beings"
Our reply: This is a violation of law of contradiction.
1) There cannot be more than one intrinsically necessary Being (Proven to be true. See Argument above) .
2) There can be more than one intrinsically necessary Being.
Since (1) has been proven to be TRUE , then by rational necessity its opposite "there can be more than one intrinsically necessary beings"Must be deemed as false. Any body who holds both (1) and (2) to be true at the same time is violating the law.
The claim (2) "there can be more than one intrinsically necessary being" implies "there can be two, three, four, five and 6 and so on).
The claim (2) is proven to be false by law of contradiction. More over since the intrinsic impossibility of two intrinsically necessary beings has been proven beyond a doubt, it beats logic why someone deem would deem "three or more beings" a rational stance unless he is mentally-handicapped.
For many whatever has been mentioned above should suffice and for those it didn't, please continue reading.
The following can be said about the claim made by a polytheist "There are two intrinsically necessary beings"
1) The two are similar.
2) They two are different.
Similar:
If they are similar the following claims can be made about them.1) Both of them are unconscious, lifeless, unintelligent and powerless.
2) Both of them are alive, intelligent and powerful.
Different:
If they are different, the following claims can be made about them.
1) One is unconscious, unintelligent and powerless and the other is alive, intelligent and powerful.
2) Both of them are alive, intelligent and powerful but different.
Similar:
1) Both of them are unconscious, lifeless, unintelligent and powerless.
This is clearly self-contradictory. This due to the fact that nothing would come into existence and this contradicts observed reality.This is because something would come into existence either:
1) By them: This is contradictory because they are both lifeless, unconscious, unintelligent and powerless.
2) From them: This is contradictory because this entails that both of them are subject to "changes" and it is intrinsically impossible that what is deemed as intrinsically necessary is subject to changes.
Necessary: 1) The mind absolutely does not accept its non-existence. 2) Existent since eternity past 3) Without a beginning or end 3)Always existent. 4) Did not come into existence (uncreated). 5) Does not a require a cause for its existence.
Any change is essentially a beginning and to claim that both of these beings (which are deemed intrinsically necessary) are subject to changes is violation of law of contradiction. Because how could something be such that it is "Intrinsically necessary in existence" and "intrinsically possible" in existence at the same time.
Moreover, change dictates non-existence of previous state of existence and existence of new state of both of these "Eternal beings" and this is absurd because the mind absolutely does not accept non-existence of eternity.
Therefore our claim "Nothing would come into existence" if "Both of them are unconscious, lifeless, unintelligent and powerless" stands true. Therefore it is absurd to claim "Both of them are unconscious, lifeless, unintelligent and powerless" because it contradicts observed reality i.e. our very own existence and refutes the necessary existence of both of them.
2) Both of them are alive, intelligent and powerful.
There cannot be two omnipotent beings at the same time.
After all, that would mean that they would have to agree to bring something into existence, as they are both of equal power, and this is a restricted power, not an absolute power.
a) If Being-A willed to create something and Being-B did not want it, Being-B is not all powerful and by definition cannot be Intrinsically necessary and therefore contingent;b) If Being-B willed to create something and Being-A did not want it, Being-A is not all powerful and by definition cannot be intrinsically necessary and therefore contingent;
c) If Being-A willed to create something and Being-B allowed it (and could have stopped it if he wanted), Being-A’s acts are dependent on Being-B’s permission, and thus Being-A is not all powerful and by definition cannot be intrinsically necessary and therefore contingent;
d) If Being-B willed to create something and Being-A allowed it (and could have stopped it if he wanted), Being-B’s acts are dependent on Being-A’s permission, and thus Being-B is not all powerful and by definition cannot be intrinsically necessary and therefore contingent;
e) If we suppose that both willed to create a single object and its creation took place, that would entail the “obtainment of what is already obtained (tahsil al-hasil),” which is a rational absurdity. (For example, if we suppose that both willed to create a single indivisible particle and its creation took place, that would mean that there are two indivisible particles, not one. And if we supposed that one indivisible particle came into being from their joint act of creation, it would entail the divisibility of something that is indivisible, which is rationally absurd.)
f) If both are similar, then what is true for one is true for the other. So if one is incapable based the scenarios mentioned above, that means that both are incapable, and if both are incapable, both lack power to create anything. If this were the case the nothing would come into existence.
Therefore by rational necessity there cannot be two intrinsically necessary beings who are alive, intelligent and powerful.
Different:
1) One is unconscious, unintelligent and powerless and the other is alive, intelligent and powerful.If they were different, then they would need specification in terms of which one should have which eternal attribute to distinguish it, which would make them both in need of specification and therefore possible in existence. How could something be deemed as intrinsically necessary and intrinsically possible at the same time? This is violation of the law of contradiction. Moreover what is in need of specification is not intrinsically necessary in existence to begin with.
2)Both of them are alive, intelligent and powerful but different.This is clearly a contradiction because if both of them are equally powerful, intelligent and alive then there is no difference between them.
And if someone deems one of them to be "less powerful" or any of its other attributes to differentiate between each other, then by logical necessity it would not be "intrinsically necessary" in existence to begin with and therefore contingent.
Note: If someone claims that this argument proves "why there can't be more than one intrinsically necessary being" and it does not prove "why there can't be three or more beings"
Our reply: This is a violation of law of contradiction.
1) There cannot be more than one intrinsically necessary Being (Proven to be true. See Argument above) .
2) There can be more than one intrinsically necessary Being.
Since (1) has been proven to be TRUE , then by rational necessity its opposite "there can be more than one intrinsically necessary beings"Must be deemed as false. Any body who holds both (1) and (2) to be true at the same time is violating the law.
The claim (2) "there can be more than one intrinsically necessary being" implies "there can be two, three, four, five and 6 and so on).
The claim (2) is proven to be false by law of contradiction. More over since the intrinsic impossibility of two intrinsically necessary beings has been proven beyond a doubt, it beats logic why someone deem would deem "three or more beings" a rational stance unless he is mentally-handicapped.
test
ReplyDeletehow would you reply to a trinitarian polytheist who says that the father is ultimate beginingless one who "eternally causes " the son . doesn't this mean that inherent in the son is something caused ? father = subject while son= object. the object they say is "eternally caused" when they say "begotten"
Delete