Doxa

Yeah, well explained, sounds a bit along the lines of Nic of Cusa!

.beyond being is a contradiction in terms, That's Ike saying its beyond being real.

Seems like a semantic issue here?


Is the possible (but not actual) " real"?


In some senses, but in some others not....

So does it all come down to "being having depth" or not - as Tillich says? I think the whole concept of causality depends on the significance of what is "caused" and perhaps we can imagine a whirling something, like a multiverse, that simply tries out all the possibilities without intention. That do...

I think it's the significance of the changing configurations of "being" (ie reductively "of stuff") that's the question. If becoming is not essentially just "being different" but more like (as it intuitively seems to us) "becoming something" then there's reasons To think in terms of a personal God. ...

Well, 4 only gets you some kind of "unmoved mover"? How do you go from there - even granting the validity of 3 - to a personal type of "God"?

....I think that's the difficult question with a CA .....

... how similar is that to the romantic poets -- Wordsworth & Coleridge et al?

No, he's wrong ..... but in a richer way!

Dawkins's books outsell hers by far tho ....

It's okay, fh, indirection is allowed here!

. I know I'm a rube, but God, to me, isn't a set of equations or a mundane truth about where in transcendence our experiences take place. That's basically a form of non-theistic Buddhism. I think arguments of this sort shouldn't be labeled as being about God. It's about metaphysics. I always feel d...