Sorry mate, you haven't convinced me. Still to me nowise in God who is all goodness, and perfection.promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:56 pm okay i wuz a tad off fishpi but still on with what he means by 'good' in the present context of that section of the treatise. in that part u quote he's working out the reasons why 'god' or substance couldn't be finite in essence becuz that would create contradictions.
<lots of Spin>
so since there wuz no 'creation' and Nature has always existed, any individual thing that has being or will have being is the generation of a thing that receives both its existence and essence from 'god', and as such, cannot be incomplete or in error. 'god' is good becuz he doesn't, can't, create something contrary to 'his' will. ergo, nothing in nature is bad becuz nature isn't bad becuz nothing in it can have an existence that is contrary to its essence. sumthin like that.
It's the goodness I still take issue with, even without my experience of this entity...the natural existence of things including life, are bloody awful, sure not contrary to their essence, but still not ALL good.
Regarding 'perfection' - ya I see that as just the mechanistic view of nature., the universe, seems to be in some form of perfect balance - on the whole
(NOT to be confused with what some theists would think to mean, 'perfectly good')