[Milton-L] Satan and Resentment

Terrance Lindall tlindall at gmail.com
Sat Jan 29 11:38:03 EST 2011

Interesting. Do you know about class theory? What is the class of all
classes? Is God his own perfect idea? The Hebrews would say so! In their
ontogeny they say that "God pulled Himself from the void!" And that is quite
correct. God was a necessity. That is the crux of St. Anselm's argument.
Also, does "contingent" contain within it's definition "not perfect?"

You have not proven your statement that  "All contingent beings are
necessarily lesser beings."

If God was contingent upon Himself to exist as per the above, is he a lesser
being than himself? You are digging one big hole. However, God is a

Also, I am familiar with the argument of "existence not being a predicate."
I use that all the time to prove that being and nothingness are the same

Further, referring to past thinkers like Kant is the argument from
authority. It dose not change my opinions no matter how well revered he is
and how much he advanced the field of rationalist philosophy (shame on me).
The only way to change my mind is by deductive reasoning based on Boolean

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:09 AM, James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>wrote:

> Mr. Lindall --
> I don't think that you understand Anselm's notion of perfection if you
> think that it applies to either the Biblical or Milton's Satan, or to
> any other contingent being.  What you are thinking of is the
> "Gaunilo's island" refutation of the ontological argument, in which
> Anselm's contemporary, Gaunilo of Maumortiers, argued that the most
> perfectly conceived island could well be a fiction.  The problem with
> this refutation is that Anselm's argument refers to the greatest
> conceivable being of all -- a category over all being, not just one
> type or expression of being.  God is not one of his own ideal forms
> but the ground upon which all other forms exist, so is the greatest
> conceivable.  All contingent beings are necessarily lesser beings.
> I prefer Kant's refutation of the ontological argument, in which he
> asserts that existence is not a predicate.  I have read that there are
> versions of the ontological argument that get around Kant's objection,
> however.
> Jim R
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Terrance Lindall <tlindall at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Ok. But the arguments AGAINST St. Anslem's argument are precisely that
> any
> > type of perfect being can be proven to exist. Now, to me "that being"
> might
> > be considered to designate any "Thing," going beyond St. Anselm's limited
> > intentions. So, St. Anselm's argument is not proven wrong by the
> criticism
> > aforementioned, it merely proves Plato's Theory of Forms. And to me St.
> > Anselm's argument has NEVER been proven wrong.
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20110129/b2e1459f/attachment.html

More information about the Milton-L mailing list