Imagine the kind of intellectual corruption one must have to deny the reality of change or of becoming.
-
-
Not in that they can exist without Him, but for a thing to be a thing in itself, it has to be, in a sense, wholly apart from God. The problem w/ this, much like that w/ Parmenides, is ambiguity. But we stand on the shoulders of giants he couldn't count on, so we gotta be precise.
-
But is it not so that if a thing is wholly dependent on God for its existence, it must be in some way be connected to God, and to be connected is to not be wholly apart, no?
-
It is true that things that are have a likeness to God simply by the fact they are and are caused to be by God but things which are not God really are caused *to be*.
-
It does seem that way, but the being of the things is conditioned and contingent, no?
-
Sure, but this doesn't mean that God only can be said 'to be'. To be contingent just means to receive being from another, but what is received, being, is really in the recipient too.
-
Surely, and would you then say that a conditioned, contingent being is limited by the very fact that it is conditioned and contingent, that is to say, that its being limited is no different from its being conditioned and contingent?
-
Well they all come in one package deal though they're conceptually distinct.
-
And would you say that a limit or condition has a positive existence or that it is merely a negation, i.e. has only a negative existence?
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.