The un cola -- 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):

Saturday, September 07, 06:18:20pm

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

Subject: The un cola

Author:
Damoclese

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

Date Posted: 03/17/04 7:30pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Lack of coherency." on 03/17/04 3:26pm

>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.

Sure it would, as non-being is a part of being in this argument.

Like I said before,
>God having the greatest possible being means he cannot
>have the greatest non-being.

But in this argument he does, because non-being is a part of being.

It would be like being
>the greatest means having the greatest possible
>non-greatness. You haven't said anything to refute
>this.

No. It isn't necessary to refute because it's definitionally true in the argument.

>
>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.

Sure does, so what is that an argument against?

So ~G and G are both
>simultaneously true, and we have an inconsistent
>system. What you say cannot possibly be true.

Ah ha! Nor is the paradoxical conclusion of the infinite past argument possibly true. His completion or non-completion is simultaneously true, but doesn't mean anything just as this argument doesn't necessarily mean God doesn't exist.

It's amazing how clearly you see when the argument is something you happen not to agree with. Subject Shandy towards the same scrutiny, and see if the situation isn't precisely the same.

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
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