7up. -- 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, 08:59:45pm

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

Subject: 7up.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

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

Date Posted: 03/18/04 9:47am
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "The un cola" on 03/17/04 7:31pm

>>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?

Against your claim that the greatest possible being must have every form of being. That claim is logically impossible.

> >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.

Really? Why? Name even one of my premises that violates the law of noncontradiction. Remember, I have proven the deductive validity of the argument, which means the only way the argument can fail is if one or more of the premises fail. Which premise fails and why? Does any one violate the law of noncontradiction? If so which one and how?

>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.

It's amazing how it seems you can clearly see things that aren't there. I'm open to the idea, but where is this situation? (Confer my questions above.)

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
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