Q&A: The Universe as a Necessary Existent
The Universe as a Necessary Existent
Question
Hello,
Why can’t the universe as a whole be seen as a necessary existent?
After all, there is a law of conservation of mass-energy.
The same quantity of energy always exists in the world. Why assume that it is not the necessary existent?
And if we continue Leibniz’s cosmological argument even with respect to the “necessary existent,” it would be possible to assume that it does not exist either. At the moment we are simply assuming it.
2. Existence is not a property of matter, so what does “necessary existent” even mean? It is empty of content.
Answer
Because it is a collection of the beings included within it, and none of them is a necessary existent. As for the law of conservation of energy, I already discussed this not long ago (search here; I’m already exhausted). I didn’t understand the rest.
I am now announcing a timeout on topics dealing with proofs for God. Almost all the questions have already been answered, and I keep repeating the same things over and over. Please search the site in the questions and notebooks. I will no longer answer on these topics until further notice.
I apologize; it’s not your fault (except that you probably didn’t read what has already been written here, or at least not carefully enough), but it’s not my fault either. I’m simply exhausted. In just the past few days, I think there have been hundreds of messages here on this subject, and I have a few other things to do with my life. Sorry.