could the cause of itself argument not be an argument
from necessity?
rather an empirical argument?
rather an argument based on observation and experience?
not that we observe existence in itself
or substance as Spinoza would have it -
but rather that
we know things exist - and persist in their existence
also
that the death and destruction of any one particular thing -
is not the death and destruction of all
and experience teaches us that the world recreates itself -
or - new things emerge
and persist in space / time - endure - to the point -
at least of dramatic change
i.e. - death - destruction
isn't it safe to assume that this state of affairs will
continue?
where is the need for necessity?
and yes - on the basis of these observations
why not speak of 'existence'?
existence as such
- as the explanation for the myriad creations and changes -
where's the problem?
if there is none
we can drop -
necessity - the ontological argument - substance
and substance on such a view is just a description of what
exists
or even the term we might reserve for something approaching
a complete description
seems easier to me
