(August 14, 2009 at 3:11 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 14, 2009 at 2:38 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: So God is as pure as you can imagine him, because you said actualization is comparable to imagination. That's awesome that you can admit you imagine God. I have to agree, God is probably the purest intellect in your imagination.

No, that's not what I said. But it's true that we cannot know that God exists without being intellectual agents; and that's also why we, as intellectual agents, have a higher teleological likeness to God and the possibility for an actual relationship to God.

That's not what I said but you agree with me anyway. Well I'm glad you can admit God is a product of your imagination. Thanks.

(August 14, 2009 at 3:11 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Eternal does not mean an infinite amount of time, but a subsistent, nontemporal reality wholly apart from time.

Could you perhaps clarifiy the difference between an infinite amount of time, and outside of time?

EvF

(August 14, 2009 at 2:08 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: He's complex because he is capable of doing such incredible stuff, of transcending, he has amazing superhuman power - he's supernatural after all - he is superintelligent, and even without all this, simply the fact that he can create the universe and be there right from the outset without any explanation for him:This makes him more complex than the universe itself - it would be far less complex to just say the universe was there before God. 'The Universe + God' is more complex than just 'The Universe.' If the universe is to need an explanation then God is too, if the universe isn't, then we can just say the universe was always there and to add God into the equation is, once again, unnecessary; it's gratuitious.

Again, you have nothing to offer when it comes to arguing why God is complex. You define complexity as you want to, and therefore, I am not going to go into a semantic battle with you. I have at least defined complexity, as composition, and mutability which means the potential for an almost unlimited amount of new complexities and multiplicities and oppositions within the composite system. According to what I -at least definitively and coherently- understand with complex, God is not complex, God is absolutely simple.

As for the rest, EvF, you have miscomprehended my arguments, you have attacked them as "semantic", without providing any refutation or actual adressing of them, because why refute what is just semantic and needs no refutation? That's why it's such an easy escape clause. I can't waste time with such escape clauses though. All I can say is that we have radically different views of things, and I don't think any more discussion will be fruitful because of the radical incompatibility of our worldviews. No one will convince anyone else, anyway.

(August 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Again, you have nothing to offer when it comes to arguing why God is complex. You define complexity as you want to,

I am using the standard definition of complexity when it comes to how complex an entity is. For the same reason it's unlikely for living things to be without an explanation, and why they're complex unless they have an explanation (which is evolution) - your God is complex for the same reason.

Quote:All I can say is that we have radically different views of things, and I don't think any more discussion will be fruitful because of the radical incompatibility of our worldviews. No one will convince anyone else, anyway.

If you wish although I'd prefer to proceed because I'm not at all frustrated by discussing with you (or whoever else on these forums).

EvF

(August 14, 2009 at 3:11 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: He had all along. What you don't understand is just divine simplicity: that all of Gods attributes equals to the same fact of his being, of pure actuality.

In other words will = action = goodness = will = justice = action = etc ? and all words lose meaning as his attributes are not separate at all but defined under one phrase which breaks down any coherence of this god character?

(August 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: My personal one? No, it's not simply my personal one, but the one used in a large body of thinkers aside from me. You can dispute it, if you want, but that's a fight over words which I'm not going to engage in.

I wasn't disputed. Just laughing at the way you stated it as your definition as opposed to "the definition".

(August 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: You failed to see it, but that's not my problem. I have provided everything you need to know to substantiate it.

No you didn't. You pushed words together and said they equate to the same thing which they surely don't.

Jon Paul Wrote:I have already substantiated why God is pure actuality, and why pure actuality is the pure good and pure perfection, in all of the posts I've made about pure actuality.

Nuh-uh. The closest I remember you coming was when you said that god is benevolent because all good things sprung from him. This doesn't satisfy me at all. A lot of awful has sprung from him. I'd call him indifferent. I may have missed your posts on this if you backed up the idea a little more through pages 4-30 ish.

Jon Paul Wrote:Eternal does not mean an infinite amount of time, but a subsistent, nontemporal reality wholly apart from time.

eternal

• adjective 1 lasting or existing forever. 2 valid for all time: eternal truths

Oxford dictionary. The english language is not yours for the taking.

(August 14, 2009 at 3:15 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: That's not what I said but you agree with me anyway. Well I'm glad you can admit God is a product of your imagination. Thanks.

You are a dishonest person. I can only imagine you are posting here to get your frustration over Christians out. But that is emphatically _not_ what I stated.

(August 14, 2009 at 3:25 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 14, 2009 at 3:15 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: That's not what I said but you agree with me anyway. Well I'm glad you can admit God is a product of your imagination. Thanks.

You are a dishonest person. I can only imagine you are posting here to get your frustration over Christians out. But that is emphatically _not_ what I stated.

I'm a dishonest person when all you can do is argue with fancy words and not empirical evidence? Come on, you can do better than that.

Until you can produce evidence that's supports what you say, then every argument you present is just your own assertion and nothing more.

I'm not going to believe that God is a pure intellectual being just because you say so. I'm not going to agree with you that TAG supports the Christian god just because you say so. Every time I have questioned you, all you come back with is God is this because I said this, and this supports this and this is God. Nice try, I'm not buying it.

(August 14, 2009 at 3:23 pm)LukeMC Wrote: In other words will = action = goodness = will = justice = action = etc ? and all words lose meaning as his attributes are not separate at all but defined under one phrase which breaks down any coherence of this god character?

You cannot necessarily confound a relational attribute (justice) to a contingent thing (e.g. human souls) with intrinsic attributes (goodness), even though they equal to same fact of the divine being, in different ways (relational-to-intrinsic or intrinsic).

(August 14, 2009 at 3:23 pm)LukeMC Wrote: No you didn't. You pushed words together and said they equate to the same thing which they surely don't.

I defined the divine will as a purely actual autonomy, the autonomy being exercised in the directedness towards an actualisation of a given thing (potentiality). You can reject all you want, but my definitions of the divine intellect and will are completely satisfactory for the very meaning of their words, while you want to focus on the words themselves.

(August 14, 2009 at 3:23 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Nuh-uh. The closest I remember you coming was when you said that god is benevolent because all good things sprung from him. This doesn't satisfy me at all. A lot of awful has sprung from him. I'd call him indifferent. I may have missed your posts on this if you backed up the idea a little more through pages 4-30 ish.

Because he also gave things their own autonomy and will and directedness, with the possibility of ontologically separating themselves from the teleological direction of his being of pure actuality. The possibility for this separation exists already in the ontological differentiation between him and his creation, pure and impure actuality. As to why he is pure good and pure perfection, that is because he is pure actuality, and actuality is itself the metric and first principle by which we measure goodness and perfection. This is a general Aristotelian principle. You can disagree with that but that is a fight over definitions and words; it doesn't change my view of God, pure actuality, being the measure of good and perfection.

Jon Paul Wrote:Eternal does not mean an infinite amount of time, but a subsistent, nontemporal reality wholly apart from time.

• adjective 1 lasting or existing forever. 2 valid for all time: eternal truths[/quote]
I was only speaking about what the word signifies when used in a Christian context. The word can be used in all of those ways, and several other senses too. What goes again is the several sense it's used is a transcendence of isolated amounts of time.

---

(August 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I'm a dishonest person when all you can do is argue with fancy words and not empirical evidence? Come on, you can do better than that.

When you claim I've implied things I obviously didn't imply. As for not having empirical evidence, even though you may not know it, large parts of my argument from potential/actual realities and existents depends solely upon knowledge that cannot be obtained in a non-empirical way.

(August 14, 2009 at 3:31 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Until you can produce evidence that's supports what you say, then every argument you present is just your own assertion and nothing more.

Right, my "own assertion". It happens to be built on something far more than my own assertions; it happens to be built on a fundamental recognition of workings of reality which has been developed in the Aristotelian (and other) traditions over a thousand year long period, leading up to the development of modern science within Christendom. I'd love to see you dispute that potencies and actualities are words without meanings by the way, and that they don't really apply to reality. If you do so, you are contradicting what we know most fundamentally and talking nonsense, just to substantiate your idea that my claims are only "assertions" without meaning.

(August 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: You cannot necessarily confound a relational attribute (justice) to a contingent thing (e.g. human souls) with intrinsic attributes (goodness), even though they equal to same fact of the divine being, in different ways (relational-to-intrinsic or intrinsic).

Sorry, what?

Jon Paul Wrote:As to why he is pure good and pure perfection, that is because he is pure actuality, and actuality is itself the metric and first principle by which we measure goodness and perfection.

Could you expand on that please? "actuality itself is the metric" ?

Jon Paul Wrote:I was only speaking about what the word signifies when used in a Christian context. The word can be used in all of those ways, and several other senses too. What goes again is the several sense it's used is a transcendence of isolated amounts of time.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, feel free to use your own definitions of words which already have definitions. I'll just... try and keep up

(August 14, 2009 at 10:13 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 14, 2009 at 7:00 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Like I say there's a definition but as far as I know there is no law despite your claim that it exists

Theres no law? The law of contradiction is just imagination, isn't true? In that case, there is a law of contradiction, because saying that there isn't is invoking it by positing a contradiction between there not being a law of contradiction and there being one.

As far as I can tell yes, there is no such law in fact I've just asked my wife if she's aware of such a law ... she said no, she'd never heard of one and you should be aware at this point that my wife teaches English at a Canterbury university and acts as support to many students across a range of subjects including English, theology, philosophy and science amongst others. Obviously that doesn't disprove the claimed existence of such a law but it does show that my mystification with your claim that there is one is not unreasonable.

(August 14, 2009 at 10:13 am)Jon Paul Wrote: If you deny the existence of the law of contradiction, also, you won't have a problem that I burn and beat you, because being burnt and beaten is obviously the same as not being burnt and beaten, unless there is a contradiction, a mutual exclusion between two exclusive things, in which case the law of contradiction holds true.

Wow! A strawman!

Look, I'm not saying things cant be contradictory, I'm just saying I've never heard of this "Law Of Contradiction" (my emphasis being on your claim that it is a law) ... can you provide a link to an objective site that explains this (over and above the basic idea of contradiction I mean)?

(August 14, 2009 at 10:13 am)Jon Paul Wrote: Again, do you deny the basic experience that tells us the truth of the law of contradiction - that I exist, and cannot both exist in the same sense and the same time, and not exist in the same sense and the same time? If you deny this, then you are the one being rhetorical and wasting time on definitions and semantics, to deny the obvious fact that of this law.

Truth? I don't do truth except as a logical abstraction.

I am not arguing about whether contradictions can or can't happen ... I am questioning whether there is a law concerning it.

Best guess is that in a multi-dimensional universe yes ... we can both exist and not exist at the same time (no idea, maybe in a multiverse time comparisons make no sense). There is also some suggestion that time is not necessarily a one way process (even in this universe) and that the universe is capable of travelling (in a time sense) in both directions and fine tuning itself ... I've no idea how but if that is so I suppose that it would also be possible to exist and not exist at the same time (though not necessarily the same iteration) and place in the same universe.

Then again, what about Schrödinger's cat? Isn't it true that in the scenario where a cat is in a box with a cyanide capsule that may or may not release its contents at any point during its captive stay that the state of the cat is said to be both alive and dead? Personally I think it's alive or dead but then that's just me!

Kyu