I know, and this doesn’t work to dissuade what was claimed, because it doesn’t fit the definition of Being at work.
The definition of Being Aquinas is using (which comes from Aristotle) can be found here.
A Being’s existence is in some way limited, it is dependent upon other things, and they have qualities that philosophy calls accidents:
“[E]xistence is twofold: one is essential existence or the substantial existence of a thing, for example man exists, and this is existence simpliciter. The other is accidental existence, for example man is white, and this is existence secundum quid.” — De Principiis Naturæ, 1.
A Human is like this, even an Angel is like this. God is not, because he, according to Aquinas, has an existence that is the same as his essence (he generates himself, dependent upon nothing) and he has no qualities we can call “accidents”:
Yes I did, this isn’t about the argument, this about claims you made about me in making the argument.
1. I did not move the goal posts,
“Being itself” is what the argument is called.
2. I did not make the term up.
The term has existed for centuries, and is utilized by philosophers to name this standpoint, regardless of whether they agree with it.
3. I’am not “double talking”
This how philosophers talk, even the ones trying to disprove the position of God as being Itself.
They’re defining existence, being, substance, etc. drilling them down epistemologically, to explore the claims involved.
I didn’t call you a layman to suggest “your viewpoint is invalid”. I’m said that because you made this accusation of me, when I wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary. I was simply using rhetoric you apparently weren’t familiar with.
When I then provided sources to show that philosophers do in fact talk on the issue this way, you only used that as cudgel to claim “I’m digging in my heels”.
No, I’m dispelling your accusation of me. Not the claims on God, ME. Because you made me & what I was doing the argument, right alongside the discussion of Being.
Never said it did, it rather disqualifies your claim about what I was doing.
I wasn’t lawyer talking, I wasn’t double talking. This is the debate.