Definitions. -- 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):

Saturday, April 26, 09:18:36am

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

Subject: Definitions.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

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

Date Posted: 04/18/02 12:24pm
In reply to: David 's message, "Hm?" on 04/16/02 9:50pm

>>> 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.

Not necessarily. I was speaking in terms of other sources of evidence, such as Biblical prophecy (if it exists).

>>>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.

That�s just not good enough. You can�t �define� a person or thing into existence like that due to the nature of definitions. Suppose I define a leprechaun as �a magical little being in a little green hat that exists.� I could not then say that a leprechaun exists �by definition,� because I have attached a prepositional claim that is not really inherent in the legitimate definition of the word. Definitions are used for setting forth the meaning of a word, not a formation of contingent propositions. This is unlike defining �the greatest possible being� because this definition does indeed set forth the meaning of something without making a proposition (statement of reality, e.g. �It is raining outside� or �This computer is black.�). The notion of necessary existence if the Being existed was derived as a proper corollary that naturally resulted from the essence of the concept and even then did not actually make a claim of �the greatest possible being� actually existing. As an analogy, any surface that is red is colored by definition because of the natural essences of the concepts involved, whereas artificially adding an attribute like the existence of a leprechaun in this definition of a leprechaun, �a magical being that exists� is something that would not be legitimate.

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
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