Is God an Absolutely Necessary Being or a merely contingently necessary being?

[Tarquin]

I understand that God is “necessary” - a necessary Being, as is commonly expressed. For anything to exist, there “necessarily” must already exist something, and therefore, eventually, some thing must exist that exists because it itself is absolutely necessary.

But what if nothing else existed? If there were no universe, but only God, would God still be a necessary Being? I would like to know what argument - if there is one - can be given in support of the idea that God is an absolutely necessary being, rather than a being necessary upon the contingency of the existence of other things.

 

[po18guy]

What if…? Rather than hypotheticals, it is better to stick with that which me can know with certainty from faith and reason.

 

[friardchips]

I understand that God is “necessary” - a necessary Being, as is commonly expressed. For anything to exist, there “necessarily” must already exist something, and therefore, eventually, some thing must exist that exists because it itself is absolutely necessary.

But what if nothing else existed? If there were no universe, but only God, would God still be a necessary Being? I would like to know what argument - if there is one - can be given in support of the idea that God is an absolutely necessary being, rather than a being necessary upon the contingency of the existence of other things.

Answer on here:

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T04hozx60ysJ:www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm&num=1&client=opera&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=0&vwsrc=0

 

[Richca]

I understand that God is “necessary” - a necessary Being, as is commonly expressed. For anything to exist, there “necessarily” must already exist something, and therefore, eventually, some thing must exist that exists because it itself is absolutely necessary.

But what if nothing else existed? If there were no universe, but only God, would God still be a necessary Being? I would like to know what argument - if there is one - can be given in support of the idea that God is an absolutely necessary being, rather than a being necessary upon the contingency of the existence of other things.

Read the third way taken from possibility and necessity of demonstrating the existence of God from the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas, Part 1, Q. 2, art. 3. Link below, go to the 3rd article ‘Whether God exists?’

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

 

[mdgspencer]

I could not believe that God has a contingent existence. Saint Thomas Aquinas spoke about this:

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Contingency Proof for the Existence of God

Frank Sheed is considered one of the best Thomistic theologians of the twentieth century. He is known for presenting St. Thomas’ 5 proofs in a very clear way.

If we consider the universe, we find that everything in it bears this mark, that it does exist but might very well not have existed. We ourselves exist, but we would not have existed if a man and a woman had not met and mated. The same mark can be found upon everything. A particular valley exists because a stream of water took that way down, perhaps because the ice melted up there. If the melting ice had not been there, there would have been no valley. And so with all the things of our experience. They exist, but they would not have existed if some other thing had not been what it was or done what it did.

None of these things, therefore, is the explanation of its own existence or the source of its own existence. In other words, their existence is contingent upon something else. Each things possesses existence, and can pass on existence; but it did not originate its existence. It is essentially a receiver of existence. Now it is impossible to conceive of a universe consisting exclusively of contingent beings, that is, of beings which are only receivers of existence and not originators. The reader who is taking his role as explorer seriously might very well stop reading at this point and let his mind make for itself the effort to conceive a condition in which nothing should exist save receivers of existence.

Anyone who has taken this suggestion seriously and pondered the matter for himself before reading on, will have seen that the thing is a contradiction in terms and therefore an impossibility. If nothing exists save beings that receive their existence, how does anything exist at all? Where do they receive their existence from? In such a system made up exclusively of receivers, one being may have got it from another, and that from still another, but how did existence get into the system at all? Even if you tell yourself that this system contains an infinite number of receivers of existence, you still have not accounted for existence. Even an infinite number of beings, if no one of these is the source of its own existence, will not account for existence.

Thus we are driven to see that the beings of our experience, the contingent beings, could not exist at all unless there is also a being which differs from them by possessing existence in its own right. It does not have to receive existence; it simply has existence. It is not contingent: it simply is. This is the Being that we call God.

All this may seem very simple and matter of course, but in reality we have arrived at a truth of inexhaustible profundity and of inexhaustible fertility in giving birth to other truths.(from Stackexchange website)

 

[John_Martin]

God is not a necessary being, simply because God is not an individual example of the “being species”.
God is not “a” being, but “being itself”.
If there is being, there is God.
If there is no “not God”, there is still God.
And when you ask him his name, the answer is ‘I AM’.
His name indicates his “necessity”.

 

[JimG]

A “contingently necessary being” is like a square circle–a contradiction in terms.

My essence is to be a human being.

God’s essence is “to be.” His essence is existence. By his nature, he cannot not be.

 

[meltzerboy]

I understand that God is “necessary” - a necessary Being, as is commonly expressed. For anything to exist, there “necessarily” must already exist something, and therefore, eventually, some thing must exist that exists because it itself is absolutely necessary.

But what if nothing else existed? If there were no universe, but only God, would God still be a necessary Being? I would like to know what argument - if there is one - can be given in support of the idea that God is an absolutely necessary being, rather than a being necessary upon the contingency of the existence of other things.

This question is close to the thread about Pope Francis who stated that “G-d needs man.” What I wrote in that thread is meant by such a statement is that G-d is legally, socially, and morally bound to His creation. I would add here that a major part of G-d’s perfection lies in His absolute drive toward creativity whereby He expresses love for His creation. (It should be understood that these human concepts of drive, creativity, even love are hardly adequate to describe G-d, but must suffice.) So G-d could NOT be by Himself since He would then not be G-d in His perfection. A rebuttal might be that if G-d created the universe, then He must have existed prior to His creation, or creation itself is an act of change, and therefore G-d must not be perfect since he created the universe. The counterargument to the latter proposition is that G-d did not change; He is outside of time and space although he created something which is bound by the laws of time and space. In other words, since G-d is outside of the laws of time and space, His existence prior, during, and after the Creation remains the same as does His perfection. Further, to respond to the former proposition regarding G-d’s perfection before the universe was created, His mind conceived of the universe sub specie aeternitatis (from all eternity) and was thus perfectly linked to His creation in both act and love.

 

[thinkandmull]

This question is close to the thread about Pope Francis who stated that “G-d needs man.” What I wrote in that thread is meant by such a statement is that G-d is legally, socially, and morally bound to His creation. I would add here that a major part of G-d’s perfection lies in His absolute drive toward creativity whereby He expresses love for His creation. (It should be understood that these human concepts of drive, creativity, even love are hardly adequate to describe G-d, but must suffice.) So G-d could NOT be by Himself since He would then not be G-d in His perfection. A rebuttal might be that if G-d created the universe, then He must have existed prior to His creation, or creation itself is an act of change, and therefore G-d must not be perfect since he created the universe. The counterargument to the latter proposition is that G-d did not change; He is outside of time and space although he created something which is bound by the laws of time and space. In other words, since G-d is outside of the laws of time and space, His existence prior, during, and after the Creation remains the same as does His perfection. Further, to respond to the former proposition regarding G-d’s perfection before the universe was created, His mind conceived of the universe sub specie aeternitatis (from all eternity) and was thus perfectly linked to His creation in both act and love.

if you are arguing that creation is necessary to God, it is irrelevant that it happened from all eternity. Pope Francis meant that God has eros for us. God has the Trinity and does not need us until He created us

 

[thinkandmull]

I could not believe that God has a contingent existence. Saint Thomas Aquinas spoke about this:

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Contingency Proof for the Existence of God

Frank Sheed is considered one of the best Thomistic theologians of the twentieth century. He is known for presenting St. Thomas’ 5 proofs in a very clear way.

If we consider the universe, we find that everything in it bears this mark, that it does exist but might very well not have existed. We ourselves exist, but we would not have existed if a man and a woman had not met and mated. The same mark can be found upon everything. A particular valley exists because a stream of water took that way down, perhaps because the ice melted up there. If the melting ice had not been there, there would have been no valley. And so with all the things of our experience. They exist, but they would not have existed if some other thing had not been what it was or done what it did.

None of these things, therefore, is the explanation of its own existence or the source of its own existence. In other words, their existence is contingent upon something else. Each things possesses existence, and can pass on existence; but it did not originate its existence. It is essentially a receiver of existence. Now it is impossible to conceive of a universe consisting exclusively of contingent beings, that is, of beings which are only receivers of existence and not originators. The reader who is taking his role as explorer seriously might very well stop reading at this point and let his mind make for itself the effort to conceive a condition in which nothing should exist save receivers of existence.

Anyone who has taken this suggestion seriously and pondered the matter for himself before reading on, will have seen that the thing is a contradiction in terms and therefore an impossibility. If nothing exists save beings that receive their existence, how does anything exist at all? Where do they receive their existence from? In such a system made up exclusively of receivers, one being may have got it from another, and that from still another, but how did existence get into the system at all? Even if you tell yourself that this system contains an infinite number of receivers of existence, you still have not accounted for existence. Even an infinite number of beings, if no one of these is the source of its own existence, will not account for existence.

Thus we are driven to see that the beings of our experience, the contingent beings, could not exist at all unless there is also a being which differs from them by possessing existence in its own right. It does not have to receive existence; it simply has existence. It is not contingent: it simply is. This is the Being that we call God.

All this may seem very simple and matter of course, but in reality we have arrived at a truth of inexhaustible profundity and of inexhaustible fertility in giving birth to other truths.(from Stackexchange website)

To me your post mushed the second and third ways together

 

[reggieM]

One answer to this is that a “state of nothingness” is impossible.
From that, then necessarily, some being must exist - therefore God is necessary Being.

 

[Tarquin]

Thanks for the answers so far.
Yes, Thomas Aquinas’ third way is that “contingent necessity,” an admitted oxymoron, that I mentioned. We know that a necessary being exists by virtue of the existence of any being. And I believe exactly as you, John Martin, that the True First and Only God Creator is not a being as we normally conceive of beings, but is in some way “being itself” at the very least.

I am not questioning whether God is a necessary being.
I am asking how I can argue that there is a necessity for God’s existence even if He had not created. I understand also how this contradicts the perfection, fulness, love, and obviously the creativity of God; as you pointed out, Meltzerboy. To consider those, however, would be to be arguing from the Creation, back to the necessity of God. I was looking for a solid argument on why God is “necessary” - some necessitude in his nature - even in the absence of every other being, thing, and quality of God himself. Maybe there is no such argument. I suppose the closest I’ve come to grasping this is from Father Robert Spitzer, but even there I have difficulty understanding it clearly. But then, again, it is natural for universe-bound creatures to clearly understand the trans-universe transcendent reality (“God”).

One answer to this is that a “state of nothingness” is impossible.
From that, then necessarily, some being must exist - therefore God is necessary Being.

Thank you. How can I argue that a state of actual nothingness is a virtual impossibility?? What premises will start the argument?

 

[ffg]

I understand that God is “necessary” - a necessary Being, as is commonly expressed. For anything to exist, there “necessarily” must already exist something, and therefore, eventually, some thing must exist that exists because it itself is absolutely necessary.

But what if nothing else existed? If there were no universe, but only God, would God still be a necessary Being? I would like to know what argument - if there is one - can be given in support of the idea that God is an absolutely necessary being, rather than a being necessary upon the contingency of the existence of other things.

God needs no thing.

 

[John_Martin]

Perhaps you could argue that “if God were not”, then we would not be having a conversation.
And if there is needed a “first Cause”, an uncaused cause, then it would be impossible for that cause to “not be”, for if it “were not”, then it never would be, because there would be no “other first cause” to “cause God to be a first Cause.” (and we would never be, again we would not be submitting replies.)

The fact is (as demonstrated by our writings here) that there is creation; and so the first cause must always be, or it would require an “other cause for itself to be in order to create”, and that creation has happened, so God is eternal with or apart from creation.

 

[reggieM]

Thank you. How can I argue that a state of actual nothingness is a virtual impossibility?? What premises will start the argument?

Thanks for looking in to this.

We move through the arguments to consider “is a state of actual nothingness possible”?

In my own phrasing, “a state of actual nothingness” is a contradiction and irrational. So, here’s a simple argument to start

P1 Actual nothingness is total nothingness
P2 The quality of having a “state”, is to have something (applied to something)
C Therefore, the idea of a “state of nothingness” is contradictory.

Now, beyond that, even P1 is false

P1 The term “is” refers to being
P2 Nothingness cannot refer to being
C Therefore to say “Actual nothingness is [anything]”, is a contradiction

Then we try to determine if “actual nothingness” is possible.
First, using the syllogism above, we can’t assign the term “is” to actual nothingness so the idea that “nothingness is possible” fails right there.

Beyond that,

P1 Various possibilities can only be determined among things that exist
P2. With absolute nothingness, nothing exists
C Therefore, there can be no possibility of an absolute nothingness (it is impossible)

 

[Tarquin]

Thanks, John Martin and Reggie M. I think both of those tacks will work. I’ll give it more thought, and try to clarify it in my mind so I can actually argue convincingly. But I truly believe those are the openers I can use. Thanks again!

 

[friardchips]

…is like a square circle–a contradiction in terms.

Unrelated to the thread…you are forgetting the Squircle.