(August 22, 2009 at 9:08 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:(August 22, 2009 at 8:58 pm)amw79 Wrote:Yes I have. Please go to the places I already pointed to.(August 22, 2009 at 8:55 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:(August 22, 2009 at 8:46 pm)amw79 Wrote: Quoting Jon PaulI have pointed to the posts in which I substantiate those claims in the very post you quoted.
The reason why he is nontemporal is the reason why he is simple; namely, that he is pure actuality(evidence please), ]with nothing of potentiality and composition (evidence please). That he is non-temporal (evidence please) makes a difference to the measure of complexity, whereas the essential simplicity lies in his pure actuality (evidence please).
No you haven't. Please respond to my earlier post re substantiating your claims re actuality/potentiality arguments
Last chance.......................
Succinctly explain or put forward this argument (atuality/potentiality) without resort to entangled definitions or theological presumptions, references, definitions and assertions. In English if you can.
Don't refer to other posts, past arguments etc etc. Just give us it straight, if you can.