Is being per se logically necessary?

[Matthias123]

1.All logical necessary entities have being.

2.If logical necessary entiteis did not have being then all logical necessary entities would not have being

1. If being per se was not logically necessary then logicaly nessicary entiteis would not have being.

4.Therefore since all logically necessary entities have being, being per se is logically necessary.

1. ∀ΔLΔ
2. ~LΔ⊃~∀ΔLΔ
3. ~Lβ⊃~LΔ
4. ∴ Lβ

Note on axiom 3: Remember being per se is the maximum of the genus, so therefore is causes all other privations of being. Therefore if being per se is not logically nessicary then they all are not.

 

[Matthias123]

a note on axiom 2: The fallacy of division is avoided because of my moderate realist stance. Universals are individualized and multiplied within concrete particulars – therefore if a Universal (eg a chair) did not have being, then this implies that all of the particular instances of this universal do not have being either.

 

[Matthias123]

A full epistemic argument:

1. 
   *]Everyone has an innate belief in a divine entity instilled in them through the process of natural selection. We do not know if this belief is a fact. In order to attempt to know if this belief is a fact or not we need to strive and search for an entity that will satisfy our definitions of “divine entity”.
   
   *]All logical necessary entities have being. If logical necessary entities did not have being then all logical necessary entities would not have being .
   
   *]If being per se was not logically necessary then logically necessary entities would not have being.Therefore since all logically necessary entities have being, being per se is logically necessary.
   
   *] Since being per se is the summum bonum, logically necessary, purely actual, internally perfect, and transcends all things, this meets our definition of God.
   
   The symbolic notation is the same above accept I added the the positive introspection axiom as the first axiom. If you are not a hardcore thomist, this argument is moot. I am just trying new things.

 

[NowAgnostic]

1.All logical necessary entities have being.

OK.

2.If logical necessary entiteis did not have being then all logical necessary entities would not have being

A tautology, but one with a necessarily false consequent and a necessarily false antecedent. It’s like saying if 2+2=5, then 2+2=5.

1. If being per se was not logically necessary then logicaly nessicary entiteis would not have being.

All you could hope to show here is that if being per se is not logically necessary then there are no other logically necessary entities, not that they are there but don’t have being.

 

[geometer]

This is meaningless. What pray tell is a logically necessary entity?