Supernatural isn't a useful concept

[Ignorant]

Can you elaborate more on this "pure act"? What does it mean to act if it does not involve any change at all? [1]

As for your last point, the problem goes beyond merely not knowing the answer to the question. The problem is with the logical aspect of invoking change timelessly/changelessly. [2]

1) Well, I assumed that had already been covered, so I apologize for intruding on the conversation. Pure act is meant in the sense of actuality vs. potentiality. The most fundamental sort of change is from potential to actual. Pure act means that there is no potentiality whatsoever in that reality. If there is no potentiality, then there is no change either.

So what would it mean to "purely act"? That is a good question, and anyone who pretends to know exactly what that means doesn't know what they are talking about. The closest I have managed to come in grasping it is that a pure act can't be thought of as a-thing-doing-some-pure-act. Instead, the pure-act-IS-the-thing. Many philosophy papers later, and you might better understand it as the pure-act-of-"being"-subsisting-as-itself. I doubt that satisfies your question, but I think that might mean its a decently true answer.

2) Right, and I don't think it invokes timeless change. I think, rather, it concludes from the changes around us that a timeless and changeless act, existing in a radically different way than everything else around us, lies at the foundation of everything else that exists and acts and changes. You might read a bit about primary and secondary agency or agency by participation.

In short, if existence/being itself subsists as its own "thing-ness", then it must be a timeless and pure act. Any thing that does not subsist as its own act of existing possess a real potentiality of not existing at all. These must, therefore, share-in or participate in the-pure-act-of-existence to change from potential existence to actual existence. How or why does that participation/sharing operate and come about? I don't know, but I am pretty sure it doesn't introduce any change to the pure-act-of-"being"-subsisting-as-itself. I've been wrong before.