Hm? -- Ben's Message Board

GIVE FREE FOOD
www.TheHungerSite.com
-> Click Here <-

SAVE THE RAINFORESTS
www.TheRainforestSite.com
-> Click Here <-

Non-profit ad served by VoyForums...

Wednesday, December 23, 09:41:32am [ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9] ]

Subject: Hm?

Author:
David
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 04/16/02 9:50pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Perhaps, but that would require an additional case." on 04/16/02 2:37pm

>> The ontological argument, if successful, gives some
>>rational support for Christianity (since it establishes
>>the existence of God) but an additional case is
>>needed if we are to narrow it down to Christianity as
>>the most rational theistic belief system, since their
>>exists others that the ontological argument supports
>>just as well if not better (e.g. deism).

But then you'd have to show that the Christian god is the greatest possible being, or your logical argument.

>>It is if it is possible for him to exist. You nonetheless
>>answered a very good question. But we have to go a
>>little further if we are to use a formal proof to support
>>his existence. Why would George possess
>>necessary existence if he exists? A reason should
>>be provided (like I did for theism). And what precisely
>>is George anyway? Why believe it is possible for him
>>to exist?

Why would he possess necessary existence? Because that's part of the definition of "George" that I'm using here.

Why believe it is possible? That's part of his definition to. It's just part of the premise.

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

Replies:

Subject Author Date

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

[ 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:
>>> The ontological argument, if successful, gives some >>>rational support for Christianity (since it >establishes >>>the existence of God) but an additional case is >>>needed if we are to narrow it down to Christianity >as >>>the most rational theistic belief system, since >their >>>exists others that the ontological argument supports >>>just as well if not better (e.g. deism). > >But then you'd have to show that the Christian god is >the greatest possible being, or your logical argument. > >>>It is if it is possible for him to exist. You >nonetheless >>>answered a very good question. But we have to go a >>>little further if we are to use a formal proof to >support >>>his existence. Why would George possess >>>necessary existence if he exists? A reason should >>>be provided (like I did for theism). And what >precisely >>>is George anyway? Why believe it is possible for him >>>to exist? > >Why would he possess necessary existence? Because >that's part of the definition of "George" that I'm >using here. > >Why believe it is possible? That's part of his >definition to. It's just part of the premise.

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.