I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[amw79]

---

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.

No. Every other hypothesis must be proposed to fit the data, not merely for verification, but for being a true explanation of the data.

For instance, the theory of evolution is proposed to explain the data of biological diversity.

Bohms and Bohrs interpretations of quantum mechanics proposed to explain the data of quantum mechanical observations.

So my point was not that my claims do not require evidence. My point was that my claims are not arbitrary (like the Flying Spaghetti Monster). If my point had been the former, then I would not have gone in (in that exact same post) with giving a sketch of my evidential argument.

I know that your POINT was not that your claims don't require evidence, but the outcome is that your claims are exempt from evidence. Whichever way round you'd like to put the hypothsising, and the evidencing is irrelevant - your claims are unverifiable.

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.

My argument from potentiality has dictated that transcendence. Not my "convenience".

Your argument does not dictate transcendence - it relies on it.

This isn't where your argument "arrives at", this is where your argument BEGINS.

It is exactly not where the argument from potentiality begins, because it is not an epistemological argument. It begins at nil, by investigating phenomena in reality, a posteriori. Only the epistemological argument begins at the already-existing worldviews and propositions, and their affirmation or non-affirmation.

Your arguments certainly don't begin at nil - I think most can see this - they begin with god, and work from there.

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.

It's not semantic, as it's based on a posterioritic evidence taking it's basis in phenomena in reality.

---

I disagree, I've read up on 'actus purus', throughout this debate (although one really couldn't call it that, as direct questions do not seem to get direct answers), and it is, for me, simply an empty phrase with no inherant meaning. If you get life-enhancing meaning from such word salad, great; but don't expect anyone else to accept meaningless definitions from a discipline whose whole purpose is to assert the unproveable.