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):

Tuesday, May 13, 09:11:35pm

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

Subject: It's there Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/15/04 4:50pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Oh yes it is." on 03/15/04 12:15pm > >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. It seems that way, but I have non-being defined as the null state of being. Hence, not being is simply a subset of being, it's just zero being. Therefore, if god is the greatest being, he must also have the greatest null being, that being zero, or non-being. If he doesn't, then not being (null being, 0 being) has greater or as great of existence as he does. The only viable objection to this argument that I can see is that nothing is not null being. In other words, it's not a subset of being. Of course, that puts us in clearly negative logical territory, and one could argue that nothing is only conceivable in terms of being. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date 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