Supernatural isn't a useful concept

[theologian]

---

What makes something exist is not the manner of being, but the act of being, for manner of being is that which limit the act of being; and the act of being is which that makes something exist. But, God Whom is Pure Act of Being shows that He is existing more than others and that nothing limits His existence, for He doesn't have any manner of being. So, it is not correct that God doesn't exist just because He doesn't have manner of being.

---

So, that would basically make god a perfect, changeless entity, with no beginning or end. Is it affected by temporal succession at all; or does it merely exist as a boundless, fixed instance?

No and not quite, for God is boundless in act.

---

I think this is a good time for Atheists to recognize that correct theistic argument for God's existence doesn't argue from the premise that everything has a cause and so be reluctant next time to commit straw man argument fallacy repeatedly. If you want to be free from that fallacy here, you may want to point out that what I really said is that only those which has manner of being has a cause. So, everything that has a cause, has a manner of being. But God doesn't have a manner of being. Therefore God must be Uncaused. Isn't it funny that when atheist is asking "what caused God?", they are asking an absurd question which is "what caused the Uncaused?"? It's like asking: what have you done that you haven't?

So, if the invocation of the atheist of the proposition that everything has a cause is a straw man, then pointing that "if God doesn't have cause, then nothing will have a cause" will be missing the point too.

---

So god does not have "a manner of being" which seems to mean way of existing or being. So god does not have a way to exist or be which ?seems a strange thing for a theist to say as it a tacit admission of gods non-existence.

This seems to me like the favorite belief of atheists: that everything has a cause. For, the assumption for holding that God does not exist because He doesn't have a manner of being is: that everything that exist must have a manner of being. However, both, if we really think of it, cannot be true. For if it is true that everything has a cause, and that everything that exist has a manner of being, then nothing would exist. Because if those were the case, then there would be no first cause and there would be nothing Which or Whom will define the manner of being. So, there would be no effects and there would be no things which has manner of beings. But, there are effects which surrounds us, and the things which has manner of beings are around us. Therefore, there must be a First Cause and there must be a Simple Being which is not composed of both "manner of being" and "act of being", and instead is a Pure Act of Being. The First Uncaused Cause and Pure Act Being is understood by people to be God. So, atheists are mistaken here not once but twice.

Further, manner of being, without act of being can only be in our mind. For, we can know the essence of things without it simultaneously existing in reality, for what makes something exist is not the "manner of being". What makes something exist is the "act of being". Hence, this is to confuse manner of being with the act of being. Every created things are composite: They are composed of "manner of being" and "act of being". Only God is Pure Act of Being. If act of being is what makes something exist, and if God is Pure Act of Being, then God must certainly exist. Hence, atheist can't be right in their central belief that there is no God.