OK, so maybe I exaggerated a bit in my last post because here I am writing on philosophy of religion again. The Prosblogion is hosting a survey on Necessary Being. I took it and given my answers, the result is that I should logically believe in a Necessary Being. The result is a bit unexpected. I answered honestly, didn’t try to ‘game’ the system, etc. but the argument presented at the end of the survey does seem to imply, based on my answers, that a Necessary Being exists. I’m going to give this more thought, take the survey again (which the designers encourage), and probably post on it in future. For now, a few quick reactions: I’m not sure that commitment to the Principle of Sufficient Reason commits one to the existence of a Necessary Being. Check out this post over at ex-apologist for a plausible argument for that claim. Also, it seems to me that concrete contingent things need a cause, but it’s less obvious that the set of concrete contingent things do. It also seems possible for a series of ungrounded contingent things to go on for infinity. These are all controversial claims — all interesting philosophical claims are — but they seem at least as plausible as their denial. All this to say that I’m not sure my answers have the implications attributed to them by the survey. But again, I’ll have to retake it and pay more attention before drawing any substantial conclusions.