RE: The Cosmological Argument and Free Will
September 15, 2014 at 3:22 pm
(This post was last modified: September 15, 2014 at 3:25 pm by Mudhammam.)
Therefore:
Being A always exists prior (or has the potential to change into) to Being B or Non-Being but the same cannot be said for Non-Being?
In other words, Being A always exists as an antecedent, while Non-Being never does?
(To practically restate Rhythm's aforementioned tautology).
Being A always exists prior (or has the potential to change into) to Being B or Non-Being but the same cannot be said for Non-Being?
In other words, Being A always exists as an antecedent, while Non-Being never does?
(To practically restate Rhythm's aforementioned tautology).
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza