I disagree entirely with your definitions, they're all based on materialism.
I would exhort you to keep an open mind and read St. Thomas on Being and Essence: https://isidore.co/aquinas/ De Ente et Essentia and other works there.
The universe could be made of intangible puppet strings for all we know, but for it to exist, it must have a shape and location.
My mind is open. I'm here, aren't I? It isn't that I haven't read Aquinas, it's that Aquinas birthed a revolution in thought that even God is subservient to reason.
That's not St. Thomas's position, Thomas would just say that God can be known, to a degree by natural reason alone, but not necessarily the Christian God, such as the trinitarian nature of the Godhead.
I agree the universe is material, obviously. But I also think Metaphysics is incredibly important and the most ignored aspect of Philosophy today, especially in academia and by modern "scientists" because it means they'd have to change their positions. Without the metaphysical, we couldn't have the physical. When St. Thomas discusses metaphysics, he comes to it by observing reality from the senses.
You might enjoy that book The Last Superstition by Edward Feser, he explains it pretty well in there.
Aquinas thought Yeshua Yosephson was YHWH made flesh. He believed God alone could forgive sins and Christ alone could pay their price. Let us forgive our trespassers as God forgave us and sacrifice ourselves for others as Christ sacrificed for us. It's anathema to the concept of justice, a satanic inversion of the Natural Law of reciprocity.
I'm enjoying talking to you. You're giving me home work. I listened to a few lectures by Edward Feser. He seems to borrow the polemic contrarianism of Hitchens without the relevant examples. The Ancients were brilliant, therefore God. Whereas Hitchens says Mother Teresa was a masochist, therefore no God. Both stupid arguments.
I do sincerely find Aquinas valuable, Christcuck he may be. He's not an oracle of reason. I can't find essence and being on the page you linked. I will read Summa Theologica. I did read his essay on Free Will. He states:
And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.
His argument is contingent on rationality. If you read E. Bernays, D. Kahneman, or D. Ariely; you'd learn that people are predictably irrational creatures easily manipulated by dedicated people who care to master the occult arts of psychology. If this is the quality of thinking we're dealing with, it's gravely outdated and I think Aquinas would agree with me were he alive today.
(post is archived)