Thread 24645979

Being simpliciter is superior to and prior to becoming simpliciter.
Therefore any religion of becoming is based on something inferior.

thats true bro .. being simple is good and true .. yes being simple is closer to god i'm thinking !! all these bigs words .. does god even care about these ten dollar words ? my prayers are three letters long max

>>24645983
>does god even care about these ten dollar words ?
Knowing them isn't necessary for your salvation, that's for sure, but I think accuracy is important and using the proper words to distinguish Being helps us be more accurate/precise/clear when perusing Truth.

>>24645979 (OP)
Aquinas more or less said by itself it doesn't mean anything and it has to be converted. Welcome back to becoming champ, you had me worried.

>>24646318
Aquinas isn't infallible, what's his argument?

>>24646318
also he believes in divine simplicity which precludes becoming.

I don't get what being is. So things exist, including me but what is being itself.

>>24646349
start with the Greeks

>>24646330
Aquinas is often looked to as the answer to perfectionism but this involves redefining the word. You're still stuck with playing the which came first game.

>>24646337
His arguments stem from contrast with privation though. Utilitarians have already cored this one. You could claim Nozick but he used organic justification so you didn't solve anything and made Aquinas secular. Marxist arguments are out there against the utilitarians on this issue but convertibility doesn't go anywhere and agreement on worthless by itself is standard and you are removing notions of good and replacing them with use and exchange values. This is a long way of saying that if everyone involved all has the same definition of good then there won't be any issues. Otherwise metaphysics ensues.

>>24646401
You haven't supported your claim that Aquinas holds to "becoming." Which he doesn't.

>>24646562
You haven't offered a substantive rebuttal. I never said he didn't, I could say x exists and this is tautologically posited in the sense that if it's existence can be verified then the statement is true. From a Thomist perspective unity is already contained and we've offered a verified statement but that statement also doesn't mean anything. If you can demonstrate otherwise without converting or resorting to metaphysics we can leave it at this. Congratulations on being, trying to say whether this is even good or not? Ethical although for Thomists this is metaphysics and you have converted. If you want to stay tautological I won't ask you how x got there and so long as the question is of whether it existed we can say it had to become to get to that point and flourish or whatever and right here and right now it's being but the next time we check it's becoming so we won't ever check it again.

>>24646600
>You haven't offered a substantive rebuttal
You haven't given an argument to rebut.

>>24646620
I'm glad we've agreed to worthless. Enjoy pure being. Let Descartes know I'm still waiting on that eternal truth, last I heard he was still working on that one.

>>24646600
Let me help you out.
The universe is becoming.
The universe =/= God
God was and is and is to come.

>>24647335
you should try becoming not gay

>>24647224
Where is it?

>>24647350
Being has been determined to be gay. You know how metaphysics works. You've always been and always will be gay. You still will never know anything and you always go back to sucking dicks in your shitbox.