Quote:God is in all things. There is not a thing that would exist without Gods presence in it, but there is not a thing or a totality of created things which equals to God, either, because each one of them is itself contingent on God. There is no contradiction there. In fact, if you understand the doctrine of actus purus, you would understand this much more, because God is the actualising principle in all things, but yet those things are not actus purus, but to the contrary, impure actuality which depends on actus purus (God). This means that God is transcendent, not only to, but also in in all things. So there is an ontological differentiation between God and the universe, because the universe doesn't self-subsist (actus purus) but subsists off actus purus.
And I cannot get beyond your pathos either. The doctrine of actus purus..this is all theory and hyperbole. You have been asked and presented no evidence of a transcendent being. You are still assuming a grand diety that is dictating itself as actus purus and everything else (inpure? inactive?) existing impure, but not existing until actus purus comes along. Again a circular arguement that simply serves YOUR EGO's purpose.
I must conclude the same as so many have prior to me, you are not here for intellectual debate of any kind, but rather to sharpen your skills so that you feel good about yourself because you identify yourself as superior to all of us, a disciple of your mythological God's word.
[quote]I certainly don't. The first writings (that we still have at hand) originate within 15-30 years of his death in the early Church, of the earliest epistles and gospels, and thus within the lifetime of his disciples and apostles. The many scholars who believe in Q will push it back even earlier. Even aside from scripture, oral tradition has been sufficient for many cultures, even today (Muslims) to preserve larger quantities of teachings and tradition than even that which is recorded in the NT, such that the earliest writings we have at hand (not even the earliest ones, according to most scholars who believe in the primordial Q document(s)) only represent a written record of what corresponds to a quantity that in many other cultures has been preserved purely by oral tradition for thousands of years. But that is not what happened in the Christian Church, in which it was written down very early. On the other hand, the gnostic gospels are written 100-250 years after Jesus death, and use the earlier sources, some of which we now don't have at hand (according to many scholars) which thus put the boundary of written record of Jesus even earlier back (perhaps to Q) than 15-30 years after his death, but in the gnostic gospels, with patterns of theological additions and corruptions into the gnostic theology which can be clearly distinguished from the earlier sources they use which we do have, which leads me to think that what you said is much closer to true in the case of the gnostic writings.[quote]
I think my fellow atheist has debunked all this nonsense quite sufficently in his reply.
Again you are deleting and distorting and changing all sorts of information here-to prop up your idea of the world and your place in it-you are all EGO which you hide behind your idea of a complex, transcendent God.
But here you go, I'll take the bait on this one thing; Is evil also "not actus purus" until your transcendent God waves his transcendent magic finger outside of time thus making evil actus purus?
OM-try it-jag86
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Frisbeetarianism; The belief that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck...
George Carlin
Frisbeetarianism; The belief that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck...
George Carlin
