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, 11:00:33am

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

Subject: Yes. Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 06/21/02 3:52pm In reply to: David 's message, "Relevence?" on 04/18/02 9:17pm >To show this is relevant to christianity you would >still have to show that the christian god is the >greatest possible being and that the greatest possible >being is really not just possible, and is certain. Not necessarily. There are other paths one could follow (Biblical prophecies, eyewitness testimony etc.). Whether or not such paths lead to a dead end is not the point. I was talking about theism, and not Christianity in particular. That (if it is true) Christianity is not sufficiently supported is of no consequence to the matter at hand. I was not attempting to argue on behalf of Christianity. Nevertheless, the proven fact (if it is a proven fact) that God exists is in itself of some evidential value to Christianity, even though it is not a rigorous proof. (How much evidential value it lends can be open to debate.) If Christianity is a rational belief system, it is likely that no one piece of evidence or evidential argument uniquely confirms Christianity. It would sum of the evidences, not the individual, that would constitute the rational support for this theistic religion if it were rational. Because of the inherent value of theism (if it is sound) it’s still relevant apologetics even if it doesn’t precisely point to a particular religion. >Otherwise the 'greatest possible dragon' exists. It's >the greatest possible so it must exist in all >universes therefore it is certain. The greatest >possible alien exists and the greatest possible person >named George exists. That does not logically follow, but an interesting point nonetheless. A fellow by the name of Gaunilo (who, strangely enough, was a deeply religious theist even to the extent of becoming a monk) criticized the ontological argument with a similar line of thought. I advise you to check out this web page to learn more about this criticism and the ontological argument in general. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]