A response. -- Ben's Message Board

Wednesday, January 06, 09:13:07am [ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9] ]

Subject: A response.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 04/16/02 10:47am
In reply to: David 's message, "Huh" on 04/16/02 2:12am

>>>True, but all the first line says is, “If God exists, then
>>>he exists necessarily.” That does not presuppose
>>>the existence of God. Is the premise false? If you
>>>think it is, I would like to know exactly why it is
>>>false.
>
>Maybe it's just me but I don't understand what “If God
>exists, then he exists necessarily." means... Did you
>prove this statement?

I explained earlier the justification that has been used for the premise. In this ontological argument, God is defined as “the greatest possible being.” The greatest possible being would by definition have the greatest form of existence possible, i.e. necessary existence. So it logically follows that if God exists, he exists necessarily.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

Christian God is greatest possible? David 04/16/02 1:20pm

Perhaps, but that would require an additional case. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 2:37pm

Hm? -- David, 04/16/02 9:50pm

Definitions. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:24pm

Relevence? -- David, 04/18/02 9:17pm

To me you are correct Dave. -- Don, 06/ 7/02 7:31pm
Yes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/21/02 3:52pm

response -- drago, 06/ 3/02 1:48pm

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>>>>True, but all the first line says is, “If God >exists, then >>>>he exists necessarily.” That does not presuppose >>>>the existence of God. Is the premise false? If you >>>>think it is, I would like to know exactly why it is >>>>false. >> >>Maybe it's just me but I don't understand what “If God >>exists, then he exists necessarily." means... Did you >>prove this statement? > >I explained earlier the justification that has been >used for the premise. In this ontological argument, ><I>God</I> is defined as “the greatest possible >being.” The greatest possible being would by >definition have the greatest form of existence >possible, i.e. necessary existence. So it logically >follows that <b>if</b> God exists, he exists >necessarily.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.