I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

In other words will = action = goodness = will = justice = action = etc ? and all words lose meaning as his attributes are not separate at all but defined under one phrase which breaks down any coherence of this god character?

You cannot necessarily confound a relational attribute (justice) to a contingent thing (e.g. human souls) with intrinsic attributes (goodness), even though they equal to same fact of the divine being, in different ways (relational-to-intrinsic or intrinsic).

No you didn't. You pushed words together and said they equate to the same thing which they surely don't.

I defined the divine will as a purely actual autonomy, the autonomy being exercised in the directedness towards an actualisation of a given thing (potentiality). You can reject all you want, but my definitions of the divine intellect and will are completely satisfactory for the very meaning of their words, while you want to focus on the words themselves.

Nuh-uh. The closest I remember you coming was when you said that god is benevolent because all good things sprung from him. This doesn't satisfy me at all. A lot of awful has sprung from him. I'd call him indifferent. I may have missed your posts on this if you backed up the idea a little more through pages 4-30 ish.

Because he also gave things their own autonomy and will and directedness, with the possibility of ontologically separating themselves from the teleological direction of his being of pure actuality. The possibility for this separation exists already in the ontological differentiation between him and his creation, pure and impure actuality. As to why he is pure good and pure perfection, that is because he is pure actuality, and actuality is itself the metric and first principle by which we measure goodness and perfection. This is a general Aristotelian principle. You can disagree with that but that is a fight over definitions and words; it doesn't change my view of God, pure actuality, being the measure of good and perfection.

Eternal does not mean an infinite amount of time, but a subsistent, nontemporal reality wholly apart from time.

• adjective 1 lasting or existing forever. 2 valid for all time: eternal truths[/quote]
I was only speaking about what the word signifies when used in a Christian context. The word can be used in all of those ways, and several other senses too. What goes again is the several sense it's used is a transcendence of isolated amounts of time.

---

I'm a dishonest person when all you can do is argue with fancy words and not empirical evidence? Come on, you can do better than that.

When you claim I've implied things I obviously didn't imply. As for not having empirical evidence, even though you may not know it, large parts of my argument from potential/actual realities and existents depends solely upon knowledge that cannot be obtained in a non-empirical way.

Until you can produce evidence that's supports what you say, then every argument you present is just your own assertion and nothing more.

Right, my "own assertion". It happens to be built on something far more than my own assertions; it happens to be built on a fundamental recognition of workings of reality which has been developed in the Aristotelian (and other) traditions over a thousand year long period, leading up to the development of modern science within Christendom. I'd love to see you dispute that potencies and actualities are words without meanings by the way, and that they don't really apply to reality. If you do so, you are contradicting what we know most fundamentally and talking nonsense, just to substantiate your idea that my claims are only "assertions" without meaning.