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
]
|
