/lit/ - Literature

>>11992019
>Implying it was I who denied the possibility for the existence of God

>I bet you think the Bible is SUPER DEEP too
T. has never read Bible

>>10113350
No problem, man.

>Rather than having the transcendent God as intrinsic nature, creation has primordial nothingness as its fixed nature?

I think you're understanding 'nature' different from me. When I see a tree, its nature is that of a tree. Nothing beyond this. I don't know what you mean by saying it has "primordial nothingness as its fixed nature". And I apologize but I also do not get your comment about nothingness proceeding God. Please do explain.

God is immanent along with transcendent, however. While God's essence is fully transcendent, what exists comes about and is maintained by his nature that wills it so only in respect to God's will is God immanent. Central to the classical western theistic view is the idea that God eternally creates and sustains all of nature at all times (divine conservation) and does so in a single act of creation that plays out in time and is maintained for the good of all things in it. This is the close connection, but still distinct separation, that God has from nature.


>A God beyond conceptions as the true nature of reality would not violate immutability because everything, both being and non-being, would exist within God,

I have been assuming you're supposing a kind of panentheism for a while now but this isn't how God is perceived in the classical tradition. If the universe was seen as part of God then you'd need to explain God's parts that are now both mutable or immutable.


I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks for the interesting conversation so far!

>>10017618
Thomism is love, Thomism is life.