Being can come from non-being

[Mister Agenda]

Non-being not being possible and therefore did not ever 'exist' solves the conundrum nicely; though I would also note that 'not being able to be anything' seems like a property, and 'unbeing' only has the property of not being anything. It doesn't seem to follow that unbeing can't stop 'being unbeing', what would keep it in that state?

It's possible to describe impossible properties when making an argument.

If X has the property of 'not being able to be anything' then X does not exist.

We can obviously describe that which can't exist. For example "A square that has five sides ... doesn't exist." Just because I mentioned an impossible shape doesn't mean the shape is at all possible.

It's BECAUSE unbeing has the property of 'not being anything' that we're describing something that can't exist.

Nothing keeps it in the state of unbeing but only because there is no it. Because we're talking of an impossibility. It's no different to you asking "If nothing can't stop being nothing then how is it really nothing if it's BEING nothing?" well, the answer is that the idea of anything LITERALLY BEING nothing is already a contradiciton in the first place. Hence why I talk of "not being anything" rather than "being nothing" ... so there's less confusion. But it's also less confusing when you realize that all "being nothing" or "unbeing" or "being in a state of unbeing" actually means is "not being anything" and "not being in a state of being".

'From nothing, nothing comes' is an assertion, not a deduction. You can take the assertion that 'nothing can't stop being nothing' as axiomatic because it aligns with your intuitions; but it's not a fact. Presuppose that there was at some point 'not anything'. No matter, no energy, no time, no space. For it to 'stay nothing' that state of affairs would have to be stable. I don't think it would have been, because with no time, there can be no continuation of any given state of affairs.

That said, I don't think there was ever a state of 'true, absolute nothingness' because the idea of it is incoherent; I think we agree on that point. It's like your five-sided square.