I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

I have already given long and thorough explanations of A), what the word God signifies, and B) why God exists. Within the first ten pages of the thread I presented several reasons why. You have virtually only addressed the TAG; the argument from potency/actuality you haven't addressed at all, though it is fundamental to my understanding of God.

I have seen you go on about different definitions, I haven't seen you give any evidence. How does God exist? What evidence? Where?

He is still just as complex

You have failed to demonstrate that and only managed to repeat it using your fallacious definitions.

Failed to demonstrate what? Fallacious definitions? If he arose from chance that would be extremely improbabel, this is why he's complex. To say is nontemporal does nothing. How does being nontemporal make him any more simple? He still needs evidence.

And have you actually wondered why? I never said that merely postulating that a thing is nontemporal proves that it exists. What kind of straw man is that?

You keep making a strawman out of me by repeating that I am using strawmans when I've never given one I never said such a thing. I said I have seen nothing else. I am not misrepresenting you, I'm saying that how you define him makes no difference, not that you are defining him differently - it's just irrelevant till you give evidence that's all!

I am saying God is nontemporal because that is what the argument from potentiality/actuality mandates.

How? When? Where? Where is the actual evidence? Where? You can call God what you like but you still need evidence for him.

I have already laid out my reasons to think that God exists. Again you misrepresent me. TAG is not the only argument I gave.

I didn't say it was. So you misrepresent me with all these false strawman accusations - a strawman on your part!

But my activity for the last ten pages has not been proving Gods existence, but answering questions. Now you made a postulate that God was complex. This was not about my evidence; I have not seen a refutation of the given evidence,

How can I refute it if there isn't any or I don't know where it is? What evidence? Where?

Saying you've given evidence doesn't make it evidence. What evidence if you have some, where?

I made a postulate that God was complex because you don't just get God out of nowhere. He needs an explanation - a big one. He's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. And if he's nontemporal that doesn't make any difference untill: A. You can show that he's none temporal, and B. You can show that this makes him any less complex and any more probable. And then C. You still have to properly evidence God of course. (D. If you want to).

and now I am elaborating on what God signifies in relevance to your claim he is complex, not proving he exists (if you want evidence for the notion of God I have presented, read again my argument from potentiality/actuality).

Not only have I read the argument here but I've read you speak of it on MSN too. I don't see any explanations, I see alot of talk of why he's potenital/actuality without evidencing it!

I've been through why God is complex here in this post and on others.

It is not irrelevant to your argument. Your argument was not about the evidence for Gods existence, but about the complexity of God. I categorically refuted your fallacious Straw Man which you tried to use as evidence that God is ontologically complex.

No because your accusation of strawman is false, and even if I had made one it is irrelevant to my argument Untill you provide evidence that nontemporal makes him any less complex and that he is nontemporal, whether you call him temporal or not is irrelevant to the reason I gave that he's complex if he's temporal.

What strawman? As I have said: 1. If he was temporal and arose from chance alone this would be complex 2. This is analogous to him 'being there from the beginning', he's just as complex and requires just as much an explanation untill evidenced otherwise 3. Nontemporal also applies untill you give me evidence that it should be any different.

And it would also be nice if you'd apply evidence for him being nontemporal.

You are saying that you can analyse a temporal ontology and by that prove that God is complex,

1. I never said this. 2. I never spoke of proof. 3. I said that there's no reason to believe nontemporality makes any difference untill you've shown otherwise. I said that whether he's temporal or nontemporal is irrelevant to my argument...I did not say that he istemporal. I've never said this and if you can find where I said this I apologize!

Untill then I will assume that you're repeated false accusations of a strawman fallacy...is a strawman on your part!

which is categorically a Straw Man fallacy, since you are addressing the ontology A and pretending to make significantive conclusions about the ontology B in addressing the mutually exclusive ontology

A strawman fallacy is when I misrepresent your argument and fight that instead. I'm not doing this - what I am doing is I'm saying, whether it's temporal or nontemporal, what difference does it make? Why should I move from my definition when the problem is the same untill you've evidenced otherwise?

A temporal ontology is fundamentally different from a non-temporal one. A temporal probability of a thing to come into existence is completely irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of a nontemporal being,

It's called an analogy. If God were to come by chance alone then that would be very improbable - this is his complexity right there. And you have to demonstrate that he's any less complex by being nontemporal and therefore outside of time. I am not saying that God would have to arise out of chance when he's nontemporal! I'm saying what difference does it make? It's analogous in the sense that it still has the same problem untill you evidence otherwise.

The measure of complexity is not temporal in a non-temporal ontology. It is not potentiality in a non-potential ontology. The measure of complexity in a non-temporal being is not about the probability of ontogeny (an irrelevant statistical issue of the likelihood of a potentiality to become actual, impertinent to an ontology with no potentialities), but about essential and purely actual ontology (composition of parts or lack thereof).

Untill you've evidenced it then the analogy of God being complex if he were to come out of chance - doesn't fail. To say that he's outside of time so he therefore isn't arising out of chance, does no good untill you actually provide evidence. I'm not saying that he is to arise out of chance, I'm saying the complexity issue is analgous to it and he requires just as much evidence untill you demonstrate otherwise.

To go on about his essence being different and how he's nontemporal doesn't make it so untill you provide evidence.

EvF