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, 08:59:38pm

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

Subject: A kingdom for a set Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/16/04 7:31am In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Err" on 03/15/04 10:38pm > >That does not appear to logically follow. God having >the greatest possible being means he cannot >have the greatest non-being. It would be like being >the greatest means having the greatest possible >non-greatness. It just doesn't make any sense. You're treating non-being as if it weren't a part of the set of being, which is pretty crucial to the whole argument. Before one can have greatness, one has to have non-greatness which one could treat as part of the set of all things concerning greatness. The argument distilled down very simply is that God, as the greatest being, must encompass each and every form of being. Non-being is the empty state of being, therefore he must encompass it in the grandest way possible. Here's a visual representation: Being 0 1 2 3 4 Different states of being. Notice how zero is part of that set. In order to represent that set, God has to have the greatest 0 being, or non-being. Of course, that set also lends itself to God being the greatest possible being, so now we have a paradox on top of everything else. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date 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