Yes and God is good no matter how many times you say God cannot have properties. Wetness is not a property added to water except in our head. Water is just a molecule composed of an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. Wetness is a subjective experience and the goodness of God is another experience people have. It is not about adding anything to either of them except in our construction of sentences.
Yes WE attribute properties to things. This is something WE do in our heads and in our language. But the water itself is just oxygen and two hydrogen and there is no wetness attached in there anywhere.
Of course not. That is because your paper is full of words. This is just how language works.
It is no different than when you say that God has no properties – I am just following your lead in playing such semantic games. But the fact is, you can say that water is wet and I can say that God is good. There is no difference. This is just how language works – it is not about how reality works.
Rightly so! Obviously I am doing theology just as much as you are and as Aquinas did. We use the tools of language to describe God. As long as we don’t confuse these with the reality then I have no problem with this. Here is another example of where I think people are doing this…
People say God is all powerful – omnipotent. But then they turn around as say that God cannot do a bunch of things because this would contradict the omnipotence of God. Can you not see the innate silliness in this? They are confusing their description of God with God Himself to the point where they contradict the very description they have made. They say God cannot make a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it. They say God cannot limit Himself, cannot take risks, cannot give anyone privacy, cannot make sacrifices, … by the time they are finished they end up with something incapable of love. This is what happens when you confuse your talk and description of God with God Himself – you strip Him of all power over Himself and give all that power to your theology. When you do that, then the theology does indeed become nonsensical gobble-dee-gook.