(June 22, 2016 at 4:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 22, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Lol "That which most completely exists" what pretentious bunk, either something exists or it doesn't. Existence is not a substance or quality something can have, the question of something's existence is separate to what that something is.

Yes, "what a thing is" is different from "that a thing is".  You can have two things with entirely different "whatness" while still having in common the fact that they exist.

Yes exactly.

Quote: If that is so then existence actually is something attributable to each. But I take issue with your binary approach to existence

Contradicted yourself already. As we just agreed, that a thing is is a different question to what a thing is. Now you're already suggesting that that it is is related to what it is. That its thatness can be part of its whatness and that the binary approach you just agreed to in the above quote somehow is a problem now. And why do you take issue with it and contradict yourself? Because:

Quote: since it does not take into account why things exist as they do in the first place.

...because shitty teleological reason. There doesn't have to be a "why" or purpose, fuckface.

(June 22, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:  "That which most completely exists" what pretentious bunk, either something exists or it doesn't.  

Isn't something that "most completely exists" something completely in the natural world and something that partly exists something that is only partly in the natural world?

Seems CW's God isn't supernatural as it completely exists 

Partly existent in the natural world is still fully existent overall.

Something cannot only partly exist in its entirety because any "part" that doesn't exist of that something specified isn't actually that something specified.

(June 22, 2016 at 5:03 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Partly existent in the natural world is still fully existent overall.

Something cannot only partly exist in its entirety because any "part" that doesn't exist of that something specified isn't actually that something specified.

Accepted, just an attempt at a bad joke and an attempt for CW to explain something that doesn't most completely exist

What's CW stand for? Cunting wanker?

(June 22, 2016 at 12:57 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 22, 2016 at 8:32 am)LostLocke Wrote: By that token.... with omnipotence alone, a maximally good being would be required to prevent all evil in all possible worlds. Since that is not the case in this possible world, that would mean a maximally good being does not exist.

That would be a defeater except the Problem of Evil argument is not successful.

I made no mention of the "Problem of Evil".
All I'm saying is that if you're saying that a maximally good being is not required to eliminate all evil in all worlds in which it can exist, then a maximally evil being is not required to eliminate all good in all worlds in which it exists.
To state otherwise is just special pleading.

(June 22, 2016 at 5:16 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: What's CW stand for? Cunting wanker?

LOL ... I'd answer but it would be wasted as ChadWooters has me on ignore ..... I feel such a loss 

Ohhhhhh ohhhh ChadWooters. I had no idea

He can't ignore me because I'm staff

(June 22, 2016 at 5:16 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: What's CW stand for? Cunting wanker?

Good God, man.  Why would you call Chad that?  Terribly uncivil of you, old chap.  Still it does have a certain humorous quality to it.  

Sorry Chad.  Hope you're having at least a little fun here.

(June 22, 2016 at 4:30 pm)robvalue Wrote: It needs rebunking. Repeating that it is bunk.

That it is bunk. That it is bunk.