I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[LukeMC]

Oh joy, psychobabble and you don't even know how to spell actualization. You do realize that your fancy language impresses no one, that we can understand what you're saying which eventually amounts to a whole lot of nothing. Circular reasoning at it's finest.

You can insist all you want that an intelligent mind of God has all the properties you claim it does, but that doesn't make it true until you provide empirical evidence.

In his defence (OH MY NOODLES I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS), in countries other than America, the correct way to spell words ending in "ized" is with an "s". In england we say realised, vapourised, actualised, etc. *hides*

On a lighter note, I'm also unimpressed with the fancy language.

---

Whether he "desires", that depends, like so many other things we say of God, on how you are using this word, you can surely use it symbolically of God as you can of creatures. But as with many such accomodative symbolisms, they are anthropomorphic, and don't apply if we are to be technical. If you are to be technical, then God does not desire; him, being subsistent pure actuality, has no need to desire, because he needs nothing outside of himself, and anything outside of himself exists only as a free charity of his actualisation. The most relevant sense that it's true to say he desires, is in the sense that he wills that other intellectual agents follow his will and come into communion with his being insofar as he has actualised/created intellectual agents that realise that he is the highest being, pure actuality and therefore pure good and pure perfection, for whom this communion is a possibility; but he does not need it, and so does not desire it in the anthropomorphic sense of a survival necessity.

You just spent a whole bunch of garbling sentences explaing why we cannot use "desired" in an anthropomorphised way, and then went on to say "he wills" in an utterly synonomous way to "desires". You might as well have said "yeah he pretty much did it because he wanted to and it was somethign he wished to happen ie god wants things". Again, you'll have to show me how you could attain such knowledge.

Since you are probably using "desire" in a technical and narrow sense (rather than a symbolical sense, in which case it would be sufficient), then you are wrong. God does not need to desire to create, because nothing restrains God from creating, since nothing exists outside of himself except that which he wills into existence - that which he actualises. That he has given everything outside of himself it's existence -actualised it- means that God is the only agent with a say; the only agent with a choice, the only entity which could have a choice, because any other entity is itself the result of his actualisation of it. So no, you are wrong; God is not restrained by something outside of himself, because he is pure actuality - transcendent-; and therefore he does not need to desire anything because he needs nothing, and he is the only entity that has a choice as to whether anything outside of him shall come into existence.

I never said he is restrained. If he willed for us to be created then it was a desire he possessed. Something that he wanted and chose to do. Regardless of any nonexistent boundaries, he still willed for it to be done and so it was. This means that for some unknown reason he wanted this universe to be created in this precise way. From here, you must demonstrate how you can come to know that god possesses desires (or if you're feeling horny, how god possesses "a will to actualise the pontentials necessary for the eventual actualisation of the potentiality of humanity").

First of all, "deistic" comes from "Deus", which is simply the Latin form of Greek "Theos", from which theism comes from; boht terms mean God, and nothing else. The God of pure actuality is certainly not the universe, for the universe is impure actuality.

---

My bad. I meant pantheistic.