(August 23, 2009 at 10:32 am)Jon Paul Wrote: It's irrelevant that you have seen the post. You haven't refuted it's contents.

What's to refute? Where's the evidence? I see a bunch of non-sequiters....how does it get to the conclusion that God is simple??? Evidence is required here.

Quote: And no, it's not circular reasoning, the Summa Theologica is not scripture, and even when it has references to scriptures, it gives natural arguments.

I see no reasoning or evidence so how can I refute what isn't there from my view? And as for the reffences in scripture they have, indeed, got fuck-all to do with the matter because they can't argue the position at all, because that would be circular.

Quote:You are exactly not talking about that, and I didn't say you were.

Do you know what a strawman is then? Because if I haven't claimed or even implied that God is temporal then it isn't a strawman because I'm not misrepresenting your argument. What I am doing is making an analogy....I'm saying that what difference does nontemporality make untill you evidence it? How does that effect his complexity? How is his complexity not analogous to if he was temporal? He still has the same problem. I'm asking questions here and saying untill you provide evidnece you are just asserting that nontemporal makes any difference.......so how on earth am I making a strawman?

And as I have said repeatedly...I am not making a logical self contradiciton because you're not even reading what I said properly there lol! I have said repeatedly that if he was temporal and therefore not nontemporal then it would be improbable if he arose from chance alone....and nontemporal makes no difference untill you evidence that it does. How many more times have I said that it's if and that I'm making an analogy?

Quote:And that's what I addressed. You cannot speak of a hypothetical scenario in which the ontology of God wasn't nontemporal - because then you are not addressing the ontology of God, but the ontology of something else which isn't actus purus.

Exactly! I'm asking what fucking difference it makes. I am not hypothesising the actus purus God and then saying he is temporal when that's a contradcition! It's an analogy! I don't have to address actus purus to ask what fucking difference it would make if actus purus could be temporal! How would that be any more complex? How is nontemporality making it any different? What fucking difference does it make whether he's temporal or not untill you give evidence for these claims? And if it makes no fucking difference then you are just dodging my questions when you pretend that it does! Evidence please!!

Quote:The ontology of God necessitates nontemporality (e.g. actus purus is not a potentiality which is actualised/an entity that "arises", but pure actuality and not a potentiality and with nothing of potentiality), and if nontemporality is not the case, it means actus purus it not the case, and in such an if-scenario, we are no longer speaking of God.

This is all psychobabble though untill you give evidence. It doesn't matter if I say God to be temporal or not if either way there's no evidence.

Quote: This is the part about divine simplicity you haven't understood - all of Gods attributes are equal to and necessitated by Gods being, and not arbitrarily predicated. You cannot take one away, therefore. It's all or none.

And in this deistic argument....where does Christ come in to make it a Christian argument?

And as I have said....how are you concluding omnibenevolence and not omnimalevolence, I wonder?

Jon Paul Wrote:You claim that if an atemporal being (actus purus) was temporal and arose from chance alone, this [being] would be complex.

No.

Quote:I reply: no, it is a self-contradiction

No because I'n not saying that. How many more times? I'm saying if he was exactly the same as actus purus but not atemporal, and yes! bravo! - therefore not actus purus! - and he arose from chance alone, that would be complex and improbable......and then I'm asking....what fucking difference does actus purus make untill you evidence that it does? How is his his complexity - his improbability - not analogous to that? Evidence that it makes any difference please!!

Quote:I can also ask, "if a green apple was not an apple, but an orange, then this or that". But then I am no longer addressing an apple, nevermind a green one.

Actually from my perspective what you're doing is you're addressing apple A, and I'm attacking apple B and asking how apple A is any different...and you're saying that I'm defining B as A when they're different by definition so I'm making a strawman.......actually I'm making an analogy because I don't see the fucking difference in the matter of this complexity issue untill you evidence it to be otherwise!!

EvD

(August 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: What's to refute? Where's the evidence? I see a bunch of non-sequiters....how does it get to the conclusion that God is simple??? Evidence is required here.

Well, how about actually reading it? Then you would know it. Now you are just repeating that "there isn't evidence" - but you haven't in any way refuted or even addressed the links I gave, both to the long expositions in the Summa and my own posts.

(August 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: No because I'n not saying that. How many more times? I'm saying if he was exactly the same as actus purus but not atemporal, and yes! bravo! - therefore not actus purus!

Exactly. Not actus purus, and therefore not God, and therefore not anything like God. If he was not actus purus, he would not be maximally perfect, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, subsistent, or anything else either, because all these facts are only attributions that follow from actus purus and do not exist on their own.

(August 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: and then I'm asking....what fucking difference does actus purus make untill you evidence that it does?

If you don't understand what difference it makes yet, then you are incapable of understanding it.

to EV.

You have some nice work in this thread.

While it seems most of us have given up on JP with his same pile of poo painted in latin, it is entertaining to watch you continually hammering on it. I have come to find myself actually looking forward to your exchanges with JP.

(*and binny's various posts also, I think I've developed a crush on her. Don't tell her ok?)

You don't know EvF (can't say that anymore can I?) EvD that well then

He's like a Pit Bull and will never let go, as I've learnt

EvD FTW (as I believe the locals say)

EV in his immaturity thinks repeating ad infinitum equates to an argument. He has yet to grasp the basic ideas. He doesn't even realise that Jon Paul is actually talking about the Christian God yet.

Quote Jon Paul Post #1
"I will try and answer any questions you may have on God and Christianity from an orthodox Christian perspective"

Not that EV doesn't have some interesting ideas to put forward. Just he straightjackets himself sometimes.

(August 23, 2009 at 1:55 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Well, how about actually reading it? Then you would know it. Now you are just repeating that "there isn't evidence" - but you haven't in any way refuted or even addressed the links I gave, both to the long expositions in the Summa and my own posts.

I fail to see where any of those arguments give any evidence for God...ok?

And how does Christ come into all this? And how does a creative force=omnibenevolent...it could just as easily be omnimalevolent.

I've read your posts time and time again, and you keep relinking them when I've already read them. The summa doesn't seem to have anything of merit on it, more non-sequiters, and when it starts mentioning scripture I'm not going to delve into any of that...it's about as pointless as delving into the FSM gospel for pastafarianism.

Where does Christ come into all of this, and why not omnimalevolence, why omnibenevolence?

Quote:Exactly. Not actus purus, and therefore not God, and therefore not anything like God. If he was not actus purus, he would not be maximally perfect, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, subsistent, or anything else either, because all these facts are only attributions that follow from actus purus and do not exist on their own.

It's irrelevant to my argument that if he's identical but temporal and therefore not actus purus, that that is analgous in complexity and improbability to actus purus untill you evidence it otherwise.

JP Wrote:If you don't understand what difference it makes yet, then you are incapable of understanding it.

Some evidence would be nice. Evidence has merit. Why do I keep asking for evidence? Because what you are providing isn't evidence because it doesn't give credence to the God belief.

So evidence please.

(August 23, 2009 at 2:00 pm)Dotard Wrote: to EV.

You have some nice work in this thread.

While it seems most of us have given up on JP with his same pile of poo painted in latin, it is entertaining to watch you continually hammering on it. I have come to find myself actually looking forward to your exchanges with JP.

It's no problem It's all good entertainment for me becasue it's always the same story - no evidence

(August 23, 2009 at 2:06 pm)Darwinian Wrote: You don't know EvF (can't say that anymore can I?) EvD that well then

He's like a Pit Bull and will never let go, as I've learnt


EvD FTW (as I believe the locals say)

Since I've been on these forums from 22 september last year - I've never backed off from a debate if I think I'm right...and I never agree to disagree here.

Might be one of the reasons my post count is so large lol. Why would I want to agree to disagree? I find every argument interesting and I find agreements is just affirimg what you already believe.

I'm not going to stop if I think I'm right.

(August 23, 2009 at 2:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: EV in his immaturity thinks repeating ad infinitum equates to an argument. He has yet to grasp the basic ideas. He doesn't even realise that Jon Paul is actually talking about the Christian God yet.

Jon Paul repeatedly re-links his lack of evidence an infintium if you want a comparison

And you repeatedly repeat how I 'don't get it' and my 'logic is flawed' because of the fact that I demand evidence for faith matters, because faith being without evidence is delusional

Quote:Not that EV doesn't have some interesting ideas to put forward.

Ty

Quote:Just he straightjackets himself sometimes.

How so?

EvD

(August 23, 2009 at 2:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: EV in his immaturity thinks repeating ad infinitum equates to an argument.

His repeating ad infinitum is in direct response to JP's ad infinitum repetition.

EV knows exactly who JP is talking about.

EV understands ZIP of what JP is talking about. JP links intelligently to answer the same old repetitious question. The questioner is at fault and not the questioned. What is JP supposed to do? Type the whole damn thing out again and again to meet EV's moronic repetition? What would you do?

EV just said: "because faith being without evidence is delusional" ...yet he and I established this fact almost a year ago. Yet he STILL thinks it's an original thing to say

If I was JP I'd give evidence. But that would be pretty hard to do if I - being him - didn't have any This is the problem I reckon

I understand he hasn't given evidence, that's what I understand. He has repeated himself and I have repeatedly pointed out that that's not evidence. How is any of it evidence? We've been through it over and over.

You say it's me lacking understanding. I say JP is just another theist like yourself that can't provide any evidence becasue there isn't any.

EvD

(August 23, 2009 at 6:48 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: If I was JP I'd give evidence. But that would be pretty hard to do if I - being him - didn't have any This is the problem I reckon

I understand he hasn't given evidence, that's what I understand. He has repeated himself and I have repeatedly pointed out that that's not evidence. How is any of it evidence? We've been through it over and over.

You say it's me lacking understanding. I say JP is just another theist like yourself that can't provide any evidence becasue there isn't any.

EvD

Keep telling yourself that. In the mean while, I am done with this kindergarten.

---

(August 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: Where does Christ come into all of this, and why not omnimalevolence, why omnibenevolence?

Convenient that you are shifting focus. The reasons as to Gods attributes are already answered, and you haven't rebutted any of the arguments. As to Christ, where did I say that this is about Christ? I didnt. This has nothing to do with Christs divinity, but with the existence of God at all and his ontology, as seen in the orthodox Christian perspective.

(August 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: It's irrelevant to my argument that if he's identical but temporal and therefore not actus purus, that that is analgous in complexity and improbability to actus purus untill you evidence it otherwise.

Now you are just repeating meaningless sentences in light of the invalidity of the way you are using actus purus. I've already refuted your argument. You are just copying from Dawkins, anyway, a philosophical illiterate - "the argument from improbability". You can find many other refutations of it than the one I have given, which even seem more intuitive. The one I give is harder to understand, but it's more ontologically correct.