Lack of coherency. -- 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, 09:10:50pm

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

Subject: Lack of coherency.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

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

Date Posted: 03/17/04 3:26pm
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "A kingdom for a set" on 03/16/04 7:31am

>>
>>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.

I'm not so sure we can say it's a set of "being" unless we include null sets. But if that's true, to say that God would have the greatest being means that it wouldn't have the null set. Like I said before, 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. You haven't said anything to refute this. And your claim lacks severe coherency as well (see below).

>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.

But then you get a severe lack of coherency. If God must encompass every form of being and if you include non-being in it, God also has, at the same time, actual existence. So ~G and G are both simultaneously true, and we have an inconsistent system. What you say cannot possibly be true.

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
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