| 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
]
| |
