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):

Monday, May 12, 08:33:55am

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

Subject: Oh yes it is. Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/15/04 12:15pm In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "But it isn't." on 03/14/04 8:01am >> >>Yes, I agree that God must be greater than a state of >>non-being if premise 2 is correct. > > >No. That's not qui the it. Nothing IS a state of non >being. >God, being the greatest being, has to be the grandest >non being. (as non-being is simply the null state of >being) > > But premise 7 >>read, “God must be the greater nothing.” But I fail >>to see why God must be any kind of nothing from >>premise 2. > >Because if God is the greatest being, he has to be the >greatest when it comes to non-being, as non-being is >simply a null state of being. So if God is greater than nothing, God has to be non-existent? Again, that's a non sequitur. It seems clear that to have the greatest state of being would not be non-being. If anything, God being the greatest being would imply having the greatest form of being, not the greatest form of non-being. And non-being would be the lowest state of being, not the greatest. To get from premise 2 to premise 7 you would need a premise that connects the two, something about being the greatest being implying non-being, though I doubt such a premise would be plausible. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date It's there Damoclese 03/15/04 4:50pm Non-being is the lowest form of being, not the greatest. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/15/04 8:05pm er -- damoclese, 03/15/04 9:27pm Err -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/15/04 10:38pm A kingdom for a set -- Damoclese, 03/16/04 7:31am Lack of coherency. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/17/04 3:26pm The un cola -- Damoclese, 03/17/04 7:30pm 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