| Subject: But it isn't. |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/14/04 8:01am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Non sequitur" on 03/13/04 10:31pm
>
>Yes, I agree that God must be greater than a state of
>non-being if premise 2 is correct.
No. That's not qui the it. Nothing IS a state of non being.
God, being the greatest being, has to be the grandest non being. (as non-being is simply the null state of being)
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.
Because if God is the greatest being, he has to be the greatest when it comes to non-being, as non-being is simply a null state of being.
Additionally, premise 9 read, “Therefore,
>being the greatest nothing, there is no God” also
>seems a tad non sequitur.
If God is the greatest nothing, and nothing is a lack of being or the null state of being, then it stands to reason that there is no God. (otherwise, what exactly does God being the grandest nothing mean?)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
