It’s in the Summa Theologica.
And I’ve just given no less than three professional apologists laying out the case for Being vs Being itself.
It is a term, and this is an argument, that you’re not familiar with. So you had a duty to inform yourself, before talking on it.
Yet I have source, using your “evidence” as evidence of God as being-itself. Here’s another:
Which means, you aren’t even familiar enough with this argument to be making a counter, you basically just admitted that.
I have given TWO people arguing against it, taking the stance you claim to be making, go read them! Find out if what they know jibes with what you know.
FC, …It’s Aquinas:
"Article 4 I answer that, God is not only His own essence, as shown in the preceding article, but also His own existence. This may be shown in several ways.
First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that necessarily accompanies the species–as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man–and is caused by the constituent principles of the species), or by some exterior agent–as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing’s existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence."
This is Thomistic philosophy on Essence and Existence.
“double talk” my arse. The two apologists I’ve given you for the “against” position, both use the same terms as Aquinas for this.