er -- 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):

Thursday, October 17, 08:53:14pm

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

Subject: er

Author:
damoclese

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

Date Posted: 03/15/04 9:27pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Non-being is the lowest form of being, not the greatest." on 03/15/04 8:05pm

>Again, that does not logically follow. The greatest
>form of being is not non-being.

I didn't say it was. Non-being is simply a piece of the set that is being.

Non-being is the
>lowest state of being.

I'm not sure I'd say lowest... but I'd agree that it is a state of being.

God (or anything else) being
>greater than nothing does not imply nonexistence.

I agree. He has to have the greatest non-being. Whatever that is . Regular ole non-being is both imagined and real so he has to have at least that.

If
>it did, none of us would be here.

Well, we all do eventually have non-being. It's a part of our being in the first place.

If anything, God
>being the greatest being would imply having the
>greatest form of being, not the greatest form of
>non-being.

Not if non-being is a piece of being.

And non-being would be the lowest state of
>being, not the greatest.

Again, I wouldn't call it the lowest. The numbers I used earlier were a mere conveinience. Non-being is simply a piece of being, which is perfect in it's own right, just as being is.

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

Replies: