Perhaps, but that would require an additional case. -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, October 17, 10:35:23pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

Subject: Perhaps, but that would require an additional case.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04/16/02 2:37pm
In reply to: David 's message, "Christian God is greatest possible?" on 04/16/02 1:20pm

>This might be off the topic, but are you trying to
>logically show the existance of any god in particular,
>or just some generic super-deity?

In your words, a �generic super-deity.� The ontological argument is in the subject of philosophy. In philosophy, we�re not talking about any specific deity (Christian, Muslim, etc.) but just �God� in the normal sense of the term (a Supreme Being). The ontological argument, if successful, gives some rational support for Christianity (since it establishes the existence of God) but an additional case is needed if we are to narrow it down to Christianity as the most rational theistic belief system, since their exists others that the ontological argument supports just as well if not better (e.g. deism).

>BTW let's say there's somebody called George. He's
>perfectly normal except that if he exists he exists
>necesssarily. Does that mean that he exists without a
>doubt?

It is if it is possible for him to exist. You nonetheless answered a very good question. But we have to go a little further if we are to use a formal proof to support his existence. Why would George possess necessary existence if he exists? A reason should be provided (like I did for theism). And what precisely is George anyway? Why believe it is possible for him to exist?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Hm?	David	04/16/02 9:50pm
Definitions. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:24pm Relevence? -- David, 04/18/02 9:17pm To me you are correct Dave. -- Don, 06/ 7/02 7:31pm Yes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/21/02 3:52pm
response	drago	06/ 3/02 1:48pm