JP
This will go round indefinately, not because your argument is unanswerable, but because you've set it up as unquestionable. For instance - "Monotheism is not supposed to be proposed, and then evidenced" - this is quite convenient in a world where everything single other claim MUST be proposed THEN evidenced.
Your answer to the question of where god came from? "The question is, in other words a fallacy, because it applies a standard to something to which that standard in and of the nature of the thing does not apply" - Again, far too convenient (for you), and unsatisfactory (for me) as an answer. YOU have set god up as transcendent and outside "spatiotemporal existence", If no-one's buy's this notion (and I certainly don't), or requires evidence - too Bad.
"The God that my argument arrives at as actus purus means that God, in his essence is pure energeia" - This isn't where your argument "arrives at", this is where your argument BEGINS. The fact I don't believe the orgins of the universe can be explained away with such a theologican semantic non-entity such as 'actus purus', renders anything else your arguments lead to as worthless to me as simply it's an empty phrase, devoid of meaning or any possible substantiation.
This will go round indefinately, not because your argument is unanswerable, but because you've set it up as unquestionable. For instance - "Monotheism is not supposed to be proposed, and then evidenced" - this is quite convenient in a world where everything single other claim MUST be proposed THEN evidenced.
Your answer to the question of where god came from? "The question is, in other words a fallacy, because it applies a standard to something to which that standard in and of the nature of the thing does not apply" - Again, far too convenient (for you), and unsatisfactory (for me) as an answer. YOU have set god up as transcendent and outside "spatiotemporal existence", If no-one's buy's this notion (and I certainly don't), or requires evidence - too Bad.
"The God that my argument arrives at as actus purus means that God, in his essence is pure energeia" - This isn't where your argument "arrives at", this is where your argument BEGINS. The fact I don't believe the orgins of the universe can be explained away with such a theologican semantic non-entity such as 'actus purus', renders anything else your arguments lead to as worthless to me as simply it's an empty phrase, devoid of meaning or any possible substantiation.
