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, 08:59:39pm

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

Subject: Non sequitur Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/13/04 10:31pm In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "shakes head" on 03/13/04 7:26pm >> >>Premise 7 is an invalid deduction, so premise 9 is >>left without support. > >Nah, in premise 2 I said there could be no greater >being than God. Therefore, God must be greater than >nothing, which is a state of non-being. Yes, I agree that God must be greater than a state of non-being if premise 2 is correct. But premise 7 read, “God must be the greater nothing.” But I fail to see why God must be any kind of nothing from premise 2. Additionally, premise 9 read, “Therefore, being the greatest nothing, there is no God” also seems a tad non sequitur. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date 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