Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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, April 17, 02:33:27am

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

Subject: Hm? Author: David [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 04/16/02 9:50pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Perhaps, but that would require an additional case." on 04/16/02 2:37pm >> 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). But then you'd have to show that the Christian god is the greatest possible being, or your logical argument. >>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? Why would he possess necessary existence? Because that's part of the definition of "George" that I'm using here. Why believe it is possible? That's part of his definition to. It's just part of the premise. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date 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