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, May 16, 11:44:28am

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

Subject: Please clarify. Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 04/16/02 11:03am In reply to: David 's message, "Continued" on 04/15/02 3:18am >Also... who says the greatest possible existence is a >'necessary' existence? Can you prove this? Allow me to explain. “Necessary existence” is “existence in all possible worlds.” An example of something that would necessarily exist is the law of noncontradiction (where for any statement P, it is impossible for P and not P to be both true at the same time; e.g. it is impossible for me to exist and to not exist at the same time). “Necessary existence” is the greatest possible form of existence because it means existence in all possible worlds. >How is it any less of a contradiction to say that the >greatest possible being [b]necessarily does[/b] exist >than that the greatest [b]possible[/b] being >necessarily does not exist? If it is certain that it >does exist it is no longer merely possible. I don’t understand what you’re saying. I think you may have misunderstood the symbols. “[]p” means that statement p is necessarily true (i.e. that it is true in all possible worlds). “~[]p” means that statement p is not necessarily true. But I have no idea what you mean by “[b]” and “[/b].” Perhaps you should take a look at this web page since it explains both the ontological argument and what the symbols mean. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Hehe David 04/16/02 1:16pm Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:06pm *giggle* -- David, 04/18/02 12:57pm Ha ha. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:29pm Hohoho -- David, 04/18/02 9:29pm toung twister -- Emma, 12/22/02 7:04pm