>>23873
>We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be.
I see a problem here, look. An object can only exist, because if it doesn't exist, there is no object we could perceive directly. This misunderstanding arises from our believe into equality of object and our recollection of that object.

That's also the way we misunderstand Time. Because of memory we think there is Past. We extrapolate Past into the other way and that way we invent Future. But what if we stick to Now only? Then an object exists (if it's perceived), or doesn't exist, (if it isn't perceived). And if we can't perceive an object which we don't have recollection of, there is essentially no object to speak about. In that case we don't even know that we don't know about some object.

>that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing
What is an object? Would you agree that it's some amount of matter configured in some specific way? Thus, we can tell two objects are differ if they have different configuration of matter. Talking about existence I meant rather that matter than fleeting objects formed with it. And of course, once matter exists, it configuration is constantly changes, that's why we experience causality of events. But what about the matter itself? Where it came from?

>Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
I don't think God is being, because "to be" means "to exist", which means to obey the causality principle. But what if God is another name for non-existence?