(November 8, 2016 at 7:59 am)theologian Wrote: In conclusion, you don't consider God first as a Pure Act of Being before thinking about creation. However, the Pure Act of Being is understood by people to be God, and by sound theistic arguments, it can be shown that Pure Act of Being must necessarily exist, and that Pure Act of Being is understood to be God. To ignore this in thinking about creation is to arrive at erroneous conclusion, for every reasoning that are lacking are erroneous, for again, from nothing, only nothing comes, and incomplete premises are partially nothing.
Do you realize that arguments like this are not evidence for anything?
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!