I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[LukeMC]

but I also presented the decidedly a posteriori argument from potentiality and actuality.

Yeah, about that... I think you missed this when you answered my question on Noah:

---

Some people do propose that something beyond this universe caused it to exist, yes (e.g. quantum physicists), but not on scientific grounds. Because to propose anything beyond the natural world would be contrary to the principle of methodological naturalism.

Quantum fluctuations and multiverses and suchlike are interesting speculations and would be interesting if they were true. Until then, we have no reason to believe the universe had a cause.

The reason this universe is not pure actuality I have outlined many times. My argument clearly shows that the universe is impure actuality, in that potentialities come into actuality within it (in time and space), and so potentiality is a fundamental part of this world. It is not pure actuality, because it doesn't meet the ontological requirements of being pure acutality.

Come again? I haven't really followed this thread since it's creation, so I must have missed whatever you outlined. The happenings in time and space spring from the universe, just as time and space themselves come about from the very existence of the "something at all" that the universe happens to be. The mere fact of existence could satisfy your transcedence, as the universe is not required to be defined as "time and space" but merely "the existence of a plane from which time and space can come into being". Much like yahweh.

It couldn't suit my argument, because the universe is not pure actuality, it is actualised potentiality, and we see potentiality enter into actuality all the time in it, which ontologically differentiates it from being necessary to being contingent.

So your god is allowed to be uncreated but my universe isn't? Why isn't god an actualised potentiality? He just "is" yet my universe must be caused?

---

Fancy getting back to me on that?