(January 23, 2018 at 5:42 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(January 22, 2018 at 11:04 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I'm not trying to compare Cartesian concepts to scholastic ones here, I'm just trying to get at why "purely actual" indicates an unchanging nature. It may be that this is due to scholastic conceits, or maybe there is another piece of logic backing this up. Spinoza is obviously describing a God who is "purely actual" but his God is subject to change/modification. Otherwise his God is similar to the scholastic's god in that he is causa sui. IDK, maybe I'm confusing things by bringing Spinoza in, but I was just trying to give a reference point. What am I missing that logically demonstrates that purely actual entails unchanging?
In Scholasticism, act and potency are mutually exclusive attributes. It’s like virginity. A maiden is a potential lover. However, following coitus the potential has been actualized. Now the woman, formally a maiden, is an actual lover. For God there are no potentials that are not already actualized. Therefore, He can neither gain nor lose any attributes to become other than what He already is.
And how do we know God is as you say? Why because you choose to define Him thus. True by definition. *yawns*
