(August 21, 2009 at 8:11 am)Jon Paul Wrote: Because his attributes are separate only in description, not in essence.How do you know?
Quote:You repeat the fallacy of assigning temporality to a non-temporal being.No, because I said "or", in an attempt to cover whatever.
Quote:Again, not a matter of chance, since chance is the likelihood of a potentiality to become actual, and implies temporality.You can't just define him as nontemporal so therefore he 'can't be there from the beginning because he is beyond time'. You have to show that he's nontemporal
But that's irrelevant anyway, because being outside of time makes no difference it's the same problem. You still need just as much an explanation as if he was there from the beginning or arose from chance alone. You can't just define him out of all explanation.
Quote:Also, not addressing actual theistic claims, since God does have an "explanation", in his subsistence as pure actuality, just not an extrinsic cause, since he is not dependent on any extrinsic sufficient set of conditions or causes, since there are none without him, and there can be nothing extrinsic to him except that which relies on him, like impure actuality.
Give evidence please.
EvF
