Doxa

Either there just is and always has been being in some manner, or else being can come from nonbeing.

Do we all agree on this, or are there third, fourth and fifth options I've overlooked?

Magritte wrote:Either there just is and always has been being in some manner, or else being can come from nonbeing.

Do we all agree on this, or are there third, fourth and fifth options I've overlooked?

No. Being cannot come from non being, Some form of being must exist eternal. Ground of being is necessary.

"Being has to be" Ray Hinman (my twin)

I think your problem here is, as I said on another thread, that infinities (as best people can tell) are things of a totally different and non-reciprocal order.

How much is assuming "ground of Being" can be described as "being" too, thereby implying there is some Godlike part in us that can leap 'beyond finitude' without ambiguity or doubt (as Meillasoux also attempts) is ... itself a non-controversial assumption? Can the finite pattern-matching machinery of the human mind really see beyond the finite? Beyond the countable?

Magritte wrote:Either there just is and always has been being in some manner, or else being can come from nonbeing.

Do we all agree on this, or are there third, fourth and fifth options I've overlooked?

God may be neither being nor non-being but transcend these categories. In what sense does being partake of 'isness'? Being can't be another existent, another thing that is (?) because if it were, we could talk about the being of being and so forth ad infinitum.

Yes, Jim has nicely avoided the dreaded onto-theological error....

Jim, as I see it being is already transcendent. Not only does it transcend the particular - bread boxes, people, planets, galaxies, possible worlds - it also transcends ways or orders of being. Physical being, abstract being, "spiritual" being if you go in for that stuff.

I think we're on the same page that being isn't another existent.

met wrote:I think your problem here is, as I said on another thread, that infinities (as best people can tell) are things of a totally different and non-reciprocal order.

explain--simply

How much is assuming "ground of Being" can be described as "being" too, thereby implying there is some Godlike part in us that can leap 'beyond finitude' without ambiguity or doubt (as Meillasoux also attempts) is ... itself a non-controversial assumption? Can the finite pattern-matching machinery of the human mind really see beyond the finite? Beyond the countable?

That an aspect of being is eternal and necessary doesn't mean all aspects are. McQuarrrie distinguishes between Being and the beings. Individual beings are not being itself,

met wrote:I think your problem here is, as I said on another thread, that infinities (as best people can tell) are things of a totally different and non-reciprocal order.

explain--simply

How much is assuming "ground of Being" can be described as "being" too, thereby implying there is some Godlike part in us that can leap 'beyond finitude' without ambiguity or doubt (as Meillasoux also attempts) is ... itself a non-controversial assumption? Can the finite pattern-matching machinery of the human mind really see beyond the finite? Beyond the countable?

That an aspect of being is eternal and necessary doesn't mean all aspects are. McQuarrrie distinguishes between Being and the beings. Individual beings are not being itself,

Magritte wrote:Jim, as I see it being is already transcendent. Not only does it transcend the particular - bread boxes, people, planets, galaxies, possible worlds - it also transcends ways or orders of being. Physical being, abstract being, "spiritual" being if you go in for that stuff.

I think we're on the same page that being isn't another existent.

I did not say it was. Niether does Tillich, It's not one of the beings, that's why Tillich says God does not exist,

Metacrock wrote:

Magritte wrote:Jim, as I see it being is already transcendent. Not only does it transcend the particular - bread boxes, people, planets, galaxies, possible worlds - it also transcends ways or orders of being. Physical being, abstract being, "spiritual" being if you go in for that stuff.

I think we're on the same page that being isn't another existent.

I did not say it was. Niether does Tillich, It's not one of the beings, that's why Tillich says God does not exist,

You wrote that being exists:

No. Being cannot come from non being, Some form of being must exist eternal. Ground of being is necessary.

What gives? Did you mean beings?