DM:
Of course there's disagreement! I even said so! Question is, is there something about about Tillich being "spot on correct to hold that “God is not a being, one among others… [but rather] Being Itself"?
What does this have to do with the contradiction between your position and that of the classical theists who say that God is the First, Ultimate, Infinite, Perfect, Supreme Being?
After your last post with its emphasis on classical thinkers like Plato and Aristotle and those who follow I would have thought you would turn your attention to them. Davies mentions Maimonides
Guide for the Perplexed. The University of Chicago two volume edition with commentary by Leo Strauss is one of my most treasured books. Following Strauss's example, it is worth reading carefully. By design there is much more to be found then can be seen by the casual reader.
It is very clear to me that you mine for quotes that appear on the surface to support your position and discard those that refute you.
What do you find below the surface in the work of classical theists who use terms such as Supreme Being that refutes that claim that God is the Supreme Being?
For example, the more I read Wittenstein and read about him, the more I am astonished that you would use his philosophy to support your position that there is no basis for thinking there is a ground.
There is an extensive literature on the problem of groundlessness in Wittgenstein. If you would like to discuss Wittgenstein’s
On Certainty then by all means, as I have suggested before, start a topic. If you would like to discuss the
Tractatus and
Philosophical Investigations there is an existing topic on the
Investigations that also discusses the
Tractatus.
Wittenstein had a lifelong interest in religion and a history of profound religious experiences.
That has nothing to do with his denial of philosophical grounds.
Similarly, you emphasize disagreement between Feser, Hart and Tillich, but completely disregard what puts them in the classical theism camp. (Read the PDF I linked to.)
I said that Tillich is not in the classical theist camp. I pointed out that both Feser and Hart refer to the being of God. Davies does not use the term but does not deny the being of God.
BTW, your mentioning Wittenstein led me to purchase Wittenstein: From Mysticism to Ordinary Language by Russell Nieli.
I am not familiar with that work, but according to the publisher and table of content the primary focus is on the
Tractatus. In his later work, including
On Certainty and
Philosophical Investigations he rejected much of what he said in the Tractatus on language and logic. In the
Tractatus logic is the ground of language but he explicitly rejects this in his later work. I discuss this in the topic on the
Investigations.
Perhaps Wittgenstein will break the spell on you of the classical theists attempt to eff the ineffable.