(December 4, 2019 at 5:56 am)ThinkingIsThinking Wrote:(November 21, 2019 at 7:04 pm)Alex K Wrote: Of course, it is far from clear what exactly is meant by being or non-being, but I wager that for any ontologically interesting definition of these terms, there is no way to show the statement to be fallacious.
The problem, then, is that there is no ontologically interesting definition of "non-being"! ... either non-being isn't being and therefore can't exist or the only reason it isn't impossible is because you're labelling a type of being as non-being ... which isn't interesting at all--it's just a nonsensical redefinition.
I like this take
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
