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, October 17, 09:12:07pm

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

Subject: yes they do Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/13/04 2:55pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Not here..." on 03/13/04 2:29pm >>1. God is the greatest possible being. >>2. There can be no being greater than God. >>3. An imaginary being is less great than one that is >>both imagined and real. >>4. Being the greatest possible being necessitates that >>it at least be both imaginable, and real. >>5. Nothing is a state of not being. >>6. Nothing is both imaginable and real. >>7. God must be the greater nothing. >>8. Being the greater nothing means at least an >>imaginable and real state of not being. >>9. Therefore, being the greatest nothing, there is no >>God. >>Else: "Nothing" has greater existence than God. > >It sounds like a variation of the ontological >argument, but we have a problem. Lines 7 and 9 don't >seem to logically follow from any of the previous >premises (it would help if you listed which premises >you believed the conclusion derives from). Premise 2 begets premise seven. Premise 9 is backed by premise 7, which is in turn backed by premise 2. You must have misread the premises. Try again. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date No they don't. Wade A. Tisthammer 03/13/04 4:28pm shakes head -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 7:26pm Non sequitur -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 10:31pm But it isn't. -- Damoclese, 03/14/04 8:01am Oh yes it is. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/15/04 12:15pm It's there -- Damoclese, 03/15/04 4:50pm Non-being is the lowest form of being, not the greatest. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/15/04 8:05pm er -- damoclese, 03/15/04 9:27pm Err -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/15/04 10:38pm A kingdom for a set -- Damoclese, 03/16/04 7:31am Lack of coherency. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/17/04 3:26pm The un cola -- Damoclese, 03/17/04 7:30pm The un cola -- Damoclese, 03/17/04 7:31pm 7up. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/18/04 9:47am Blinded by the light -- Damoclese, 03/18/04 1:43pm Blinded by overzealous emotion. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/19/04 10:09am This is how it seems to me -- Ben, 03/19/04 11:18am You're right you ragamuffin -- Damoclese, 03/19/04 12:56pm Logic terminology. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/04 1:09pm Strongly doesn't equally emotionally -- Damoclese, 03/19/04 12:52pm But strongly emotional does. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/04 1:34pm I guess you even know what I'm thinking -- Damoclese, 03/20/04 6:54pm Not necessarily. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/04 9:56pm