I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[amw79]

Quoting Jon Paul

The reason why he is nontemporal is the reason why he is simple; namely, that he is pure actuality(evidence please), ]with nothing of potentiality and composition (evidence please). That he is non-temporal (evidence please) makes a difference to the measure of complexity, whereas the essential simplicity lies in his pure actuality (evidence please).

I have pointed to the posts in which I substantiate those claims in the very post you quoted.

No you haven't. Please respond to my earlier post re substantiating your claims re actuality/potentiality arguments

[Jon Paul]

Quoting Jon Paul

The reason why he is nontemporal is the reason why he is simple; namely, that he is pure actuality(evidence please), ]with nothing of potentiality and composition (evidence please). That he is non-temporal (evidence please) makes a difference to the measure of complexity, whereas the essential simplicity lies in his pure actuality (evidence please).

I have pointed to the posts in which I substantiate those claims in the very post you quoted.

No you haven't. Please respond to my earlier post re substantiating your claims re actuality/potentiality arguments

Yes I have. Please go to the places I already pointed to.

[amw79]

Quoting Jon Paul

The reason why he is nontemporal is the reason why he is simple; namely, that he is pure actuality(evidence please), ]with nothing of potentiality and composition (evidence please). That he is non-temporal (evidence please) makes a difference to the measure of complexity, whereas the essential simplicity lies in his pure actuality (evidence please).

I have pointed to the posts in which I substantiate those claims in the very post you quoted.

No you haven't. Please respond to my earlier post re substantiating your claims re actuality/potentiality arguments

Yes I have. Please go to the places I already pointed to.

Last chance.......................

Succinctly explain or put forward this argument (atuality/potentiality) without resort to entangled definitions or theological presumptions, references, definitions and assertions. In English if you can.

Don't refer to other posts, past arguments etc etc. Just give us it straight, if you can.

[Jon Paul]

Last chance.......................

Succinctly explain or put forward this argument (atuality/potentiality) without resort to entangled definitions or theological presumptions, references, definitions and assertions. In English if you can.

Don't refer to other posts, past arguments etc etc. Just give us it straight, if you can.

Last chance: read and understand my posts about it, or don't. Not my problem.

[amw79]

Last chance.......................

Succinctly explain or put forward this argument (atuality/potentiality) without resort to entangled definitions or theological presumptions, references, definitions and assertions. In English if you can.

Don't refer to other posts, past arguments etc etc. Just give us it straight, if you can.

Last chance: read and understand my posts about it, or don't. Not my problem.

I've read and understood JP, but your willful negligence to accept my challenge - Succinctly explain or put forward this argument (atuality/potentiality) without resort to entangled definitions or theological presumptions, references, definitions and assertions. In English if you can. - only goes to show that you are nothing more than a well educated apologist. You're clearly a very intelligent fella, if only we had people like you fighting for scientific progression, social equality, social justice, instead of wasting your life on fairy-tales -the world might be a better place.

[Jon Paul]

I've read and understood JP, but your willful negligence to accept my challenge - Succinctly explain or put forward this argument (atuality/potentiality) without resort to entangled definitions or theological presumptions, references, definitions and assertions. In English if you can. - only goes to show that you are nothing more than a well educated apologist. You're clearly a very intelligent fella, if only we had people like you fighting for scientific progression, social equality, social justice, instead of wasting your life on fairy-tales -the world might be a better place.

Well, no. It doesn't "show" anything. I've already put forth the argument without resorting to fallacies, and addressed all the responses to it (so far). I've also explained it several times by repeating it in different versions verbally and explanations. But I'm tired of repeating myself, and therefore tired of this thread because it is all I am being asked to do.

[Edwardo Piet]

No. I never said that he is nontemporal makes him simple. The reason why he is nontemporal is the reason why he is simple; namely, that he is pure actuality, with nothing of potentiality and composition. That he is non-temporal makes a difference to the measure of complexity, whereas the essential simplicity lies in his pure actuality.

But this does no good without evidence. I have re-read your posts on the actus purus argument, you start by saying that there would have had to be a time without time, non-temporality, and then you go on to mention omnipresence....when just because the universe was created by something that was outside of time, doesn't mean this thing outside of time is everywhere. And then you add omniscience into the equation...and I have no idea how you do that - how would such a thing have all knowledge? How are you concluding that? Where's the evidence?

Then you go onto omnipotence...now if the universe was sparked that doesn't mean it was created by something that is necessarily powerful (nor does it mean such a thing has a mind - you still haven't explained that either).

Now the mentioning of omnibenevolence is the funniest. Because not only do you not explain why such a bizarre attribute would have to be part of whatever the universe stemmed from...but it's so random to add in because...omnibenevolence? Why not omnimalevolence also? How are you judging this? where's the evidence?

Evidence please...not jumps in logic. You go from A to B and then straight to X Y and Z

A; a fact of him being actus purus, B, a fact of him being actus purus.

Demonstrate without the bullshit please. If the universe was created by something outside of time, that's just nontemporality and in itself isn't exactly "God", and any godly attributes...where's the evidence?

And furthermore you haven't evidenced that the universe even needs a cause in the first place.

because it's not a matter of evidence, but of the implicit ontology even in hypothesis.

And you haven't shown how nontemporal makes any difference to his matter of complexity...so it's irrelevant to my argument of arising from chance alone, because it makes no difference untill evidenced otherwise.

Him being non-temporal has nothing to do with him being complex or not, but with the measure of complexity in his ontological plane.

If you could evidence your claims in the actus purus argument, that would help.

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

What the fuck? No I'm not claiming that...I'm saying if he was temporal - and therefore, uh...wasn't non-temporal - then he would be unlikely to arise from chance alone. And just as him being there from the beginning makes no difference to this matter of his improbability untill evidenced otherwise....him being outside of time, being non-temporal makes no difference either untill evidenced otherwise.

The only way you can claim that it is possible either in theory or practice to consider the scenario that "if God was temporal and arised from chance alone", is to address a God who is not actus purus, because actus purus necessitates nontemporality (e.g. God is not a potentiality which is actualised/an entity that "arises"). If you do that, then you are addressing a temporal ontology which is not actus purus, and thereby not God, and this equals to the straw man or non-sequitur[...][/quote] 1. I'm not saying he's temporal. 2. So therefore I'm not misrepresenting your argument. 3. Therefore it's not a strawman on my part. 4. You keep falsely accusing me of strawmen and giving examples of me saying things I haven't actually said, and then saying it's a 'strawman' 5. In doing this you are making a strawman of me.

I'm not saying God is temporal, I know you say he's nontemporal...

What I'm saying is that untill you evidence why nontemporal makes any difference, and untill you evidence his nontemporality itself, it makes no difference and it's dodging the question to say that he's not just as complex and improbable as if he did/i] arise from chance alone.

Just as if he was there from the beginning he's just as complex as if he arises from chance alone...he's also just as complex if he's nontemporal untill you evidence otherwise, [i]and evidence his nontemporality (and while you're at it, perhaps you could evidnece him? Even if God was somehow not that complex (lmfao) then he still requires evidence).

In other words, God cannot be temporal and "arise by chance", and still be God. A random object with a spatiotemporal and material ontology can.

I'm not saying he can (or can't for that matter), I'm not making a strawman and saying he's arising from chance. I'm saying that if he could and was temporal it would be improbable for him to do so, he would be very complex indeed - and how does it make any difference if he's nontemporal? How is this not analogous on the matter of complexity? And please provide evidence for his nontemporality, and perhaps his existence also.

A final quesiton....how do you conclude omnibenevolence in your arguments but not omnimalevolence? Why would God be good?

[Evidence please!].

EvD

[Jon Paul]

No. I never said that he is nontemporal makes him simple. The reason why he is nontemporal is the reason why he is simple; namely, that he is pure actuality, with nothing of potentiality and composition. That he is non-temporal makes a difference to the measure of complexity, whereas the essential simplicity lies in his pure actuality.

But this does no good without evidence. I have re-read your posts on the actus purus argument, you start by saying that there would have had to be a time without time, non-temporality, and then you go on to mention omnipresence....when just because the universe was created by something that was outside of time, doesn't mean this thing outside of time is everywhere. And then you add omniscience into the equation...and I have no idea how you do that - how would such a thing have all knowledge? How are you concluding that? Where's the evidence?

Then you go onto omnipotence...now if the universe was sparked that doesn't mean it was created by something that is necessarily powerful (nor does it mean such a thing has a mind - you still haven't explained that either).

Now the mentioning of omnibenevolence is the funniest. Because not only do you not explain why such a bizarre attribute would have to be part of whatever the universe stemmed from...but it's so random to add in because...omnibenevolence? Why not omnimalevolence also? How are you judging this? where's the evidence?

I have explained all of this. Why Gods attributes are what they are, in numerous posts. But the specific ones you mention, are summarised in this post:

I've already answered all of thein many posts. I've made clear that God is not an intellect like a human is. Here, here, here, here.

(..)

As to Gods simplicity, a long exposition from the Summa here.

As to Gods goodness and perfection, here, here, here. As to Gods love, here, here. As to truth and God, here.

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

What the fuck? No I'm not claiming that...I'm saying if he was temporal - and therefore, uh...wasn't non-temporal - then he would be unlikely to arise from chance alone. .

I know what you claimed. I skipped the word "being".

1. I'm not saying he's temporal. 2. So therefore I'm not misrepresenting your argument. 3. Therefore it's not a strawman on my part. 4. You keep falsely accusing me of strawmen and giving examples of me saying things I haven't actually said, and then saying it's a 'strawman' 5. In doing this you are making a strawman of me.

I didn't say you said explicitly he was temporal. Read what I said again.

As I have said: 1. If he was temporal and arose from chance alone this would be complex 2. This is analogous to him 'being there from the beginning', he's just as complex and requires just as much an explanation untill evidenced otherwise 3. Nontemporal also applies untill you give me evidence that it should be any different.

You claim that if an atemporal being (actus purus) was temporal and arose from chance alone, this [being] would be complex. I reply: no, it is a self-contradiction, it cannot be even in theory nevermind in praxis, because it contains a contradiction in terms. The only way you can claim that it is possible either in theory or practice to consider the scenario that "if God was temporal and arised from chance alone", is to address a God who is not actus purus, because actus purus necessitates nontemporality (e.g. God is not a potentiality which is actualised/an entity that "arises"). If you do that, then you are addressing a temporal ontology which is not actus purus, and thereby not God, and this equals to the straw man or non-sequitur of pretending to make significantive conclusions about the status of actus purus complexity by addressing the status of complexity of something which is not actus purus. Since it is not actus purus, it would have none of the other attributes of God, either; such as omnipotence, omnipresence, eternality, omniscience, etc, since all of these attributes are ultimately equal to actus purus, and are not arbitrarily predicated, and do not exist without actus purus. In other words, God cannot be temporal and "arise by chance", and still be God. A random object with a spatiotemporal and material ontology can.

I'm not saying God is temporal, I know you say he's nontemporal...

What I'm saying is that untill you evidence why nontemporal makes any difference, and untill you evidence his nontemporality itself, it makes no difference and it's dodging the question to say that he's not just as complex and improbable as if he did/i] arise from chance alone.

Just as if he was there from the beginning he's just as complex as if he arises from chance alone...he's also just as complex if he's nontemporal untill you evidence otherwise, [i]and evidence his nontemporality (and while you're at it, perhaps you could evidnece him? Even if God was somehow not that complex (lmfao) then he still requires evidence).

Again, you repeat exactly what I addressed. This discussion is worthless; you understand nothing.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have explained all of this. Why Gods attributes are what they are, in numerous posts. But the specific ones you mention, are summarised in this post:

I've been through this and you've posted this enough times - this is not evidence! And scripture irrelevant here - arguing from scripture is fallacious - it's circular reasoning.

I know what you claimed. I skipped the word "being".

If you really know what I claimed you'll know I never misrespresented you and I have not commited the strawman fallacy. Unless you don't understand what a strawman is that is! Because I fail to see how you can assert to me that I'm making a strawman and I'm not...you're making a strawman out of me by doing this. Because I'm not misrepresenting you, you're misrepresenting me as such.

I didn't say you said explicitly he was temporal. Read what I said again.

Dude...look - I have read what you said it's not fucking rocket science here...you are claiming I'm at least implicity claiming it...that I'm implying it in some way....otherwise it's not a strawman! Because if I'm not in any way suggesting he's temporal then it's not a strawman because I'm not misrepresenting you.

What I'm saying is that temporal or nontemporal it makes no difference untill you provide evidence that it does. You keep pointing to posts....but can you actually give evidence please? And the bible is out the window here because that's fucking circular so don't poison your posts with that shit! Lmao.

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

..............no! Ever heard of hypothesising? How many times have I said that if he wasn't atemporal and was temporal he'd be complex...so I'm not talking about an atemporal God being temporal, that would obviously be a self-contradiction and I'm obviously not claiming that!! I'm saying that if he wasn't atemporal/nontemporal (Got that?! IF) then he would be complex....and if he is nontemporal/atemporal as you suggest...how is his complexity not analogous to if he was temporal? How is he any less complex? Untill you provide evidence you're just playing with words.

And by the way...you keep saying it's a strawman or non-sequiter on my part....you do realize that these things are basically completely different? A non-sequiter could be a fucking number of fallacies and you haven't pointed any out other than the strawman one....which I have refuted as by definition not being a strawman because a strawman is a misrepresentation - and I'm not doing that.

A non-sequiter means it 'does not follow' but what doesn't follow? It doesn't follow that I'm saying that nontemporal or temporal it makes no difference which untill you provide evidence that it does? I call that reason actually.

Again, you repeat exactly what I addressed. This discussion is worthless; you understand nothing.

I understand that you haven't provided one shred of valid evidence.

EvD

[Jon Paul]

I've been through this and you've posted this enough times - this is not evidence! And scripture irrelevant here - arguing from scripture is fallacious - it's circular reasoning.

It's irrelevant that you have seen the post. You haven't refuted it's contents. 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.

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

so I'm not talking about an atemporal God being temporal, that would obviously be a self-contradiction and I'm obviously not claiming that!!

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

I'm saying that if he wasn't atemporal/nontemporal (Got that?! IF) then he would be complex....

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. 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 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.

As I have said: 1. If he was temporal and arose from chance alone this would be complex (..)

You claim that if an atemporal being (actus purus) was temporal and arose from chance alone, this [being] would be complex. I reply: no, it is a self-contradiction, it cannot be even in theory nevermind in praxis, because it contains a contradiction in terms. The only way you can claim that it is possible either in theory or practice to consider the scenario that "if God was temporal and arised from chance alone", is to address a God who is not actus purus, because actus purus necessitates nontemporality (e.g. God is not a potentiality which is actualised/an entity that "arises"). If you do that, then you are addressing a temporal ontology which is not actus purus, and thereby not God, and this equals to the straw man or non-sequitur of pretending to make significantive conclusions about the status of actus purus complexity by addressing the status of complexity of something which is not actus purus. Since it is not actus purus, it would have none of the other attributes of God, either; such as omnipotence, omnipresence, eternality, omniscience, etc, since all of these attributes are ultimately equal to actus purus, and are not arbitrarily predicated, and do not exist without actus purus. In other words, God cannot be temporal and "arise by chance", and still be God. A random object with a spatiotemporal and material ontology can.

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. It happens so that the apple has the accident of being green (you could find a red one which is still an apple), while God is void of accidents and has no non-essential qualities, for he is his essence, which is purely actuality.