[Milton-L] Satan and Resentment

James Rovira jamesrovira at gmail.com
Sat Jan 29 18:02:31 EST 2011

Mr. Lindall -- You're really not making much sense here.

1. I didn't cite Kant as an authority, but a someone who made a
coherent argument against the ontological argument for the existence
of God.

2. In Christian thought and at least some Hebrew thought, God is
without beginning or end, so there is no "self-contingency."  Eternity
exists outside of time, so there is no "before" either.

3.  Anselm, to my knowledge, did not believe that God pulled himself
out of the void.

4. Of course a contingent being is a lesser being -- because it is
dependent upon something else for its existence.

5. Existence "not being a predicate" has nothing to do with
"nothingness."  Existence and nothingness are utter opposites.  The
word "predicate" in the phrase "existence is not a predicate" refers
to the literal, grammatical, predicate of a sentence.

Existence is not an attribute of a thing like color and extension:
e.g. The car is blue.  "Car" is the subject of this sentence and
"blue" is the predicate.  You would not say, "the car exists,"
however, and make any sense, because you assume that the car exists by
talking about the car to begin with.   Existence is assumed by the
subject of the sentence so does not belong in the predicate.

Here is where some notion of "class theory" may come in.  I prefer
Buchler's Metaphysics of Natural Complexes on this point (and for the
record, not because Buchler is some kind of authority, but because he
is a clear thinker).  The question here is, "how does it exist?"
Returning to the ontological argument, existence must be, for the most
perfect being, absolute, unconditional, and non-contingent.  A greater
being could not be conceived.

The real weakness in the ontological argument is that it assumes the
human ability to conceive of God says something about the real
existence of God.

We are teetering near the stupid line in this conversation.  I'm very
close to see how rapidly it tumbles off.

Jim R

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Terrance Lindall <tlindall at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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."

More information about the Milton-L mailing list