I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

No. I never said that he is nontemporal makes him simple. The reason why he is nontemporal is the reason why he is simple; namely, that he is pure actuality, with nothing of potentiality and composition. That he is non-temporal makes a difference to the measure of complexity, whereas the essential simplicity lies in his pure actuality.

But this does no good without evidence. I have re-read your posts on the actus purus argument, you start by saying that there would have had to be a time without time, non-temporality, and then you go on to mention omnipresence....when just because the universe was created by something that was outside of time, doesn't mean this thing outside of time is everywhere. And then you add omniscience into the equation...and I have no idea how you do that - how would such a thing have all knowledge? How are you concluding that? Where's the evidence?

Then you go onto omnipotence...now if the universe was sparked that doesn't mean it was created by something that is necessarily powerful (nor does it mean such a thing has a mind - you still haven't explained that either).

Now the mentioning of omnibenevolence is the funniest. Because not only do you not explain why such a bizarre attribute would have to be part of whatever the universe stemmed from...but it's so random to add in because...omnibenevolence? Why not omnimalevolence also? How are you judging this? where's the evidence?

Evidence please...not jumps in logic. You go from A to B and then straight to X Y and Z

A; a fact of him being actus purus, B, a fact of him being actus purus.

Demonstrate without the bullshit please. If the universe was created by something outside of time, that's just nontemporality and in itself isn't exactly "God", and any godly attributes...where's the evidence?

And furthermore you haven't evidenced that the universe even needs a cause in the first place.

because it's not a matter of evidence, but of the implicit ontology even in hypothesis.

And you haven't shown how nontemporal makes any difference to his matter of complexity...so it's irrelevant to my argument of arising from chance alone, because it makes no difference untill evidenced otherwise.

Him being non-temporal has nothing to do with him being complex or not, but with the measure of complexity in his ontological plane.

If you could evidence your claims in the actus purus argument, that would help.

You claim that if an atemporal being (actus purus) was temporal and arose from chance alone, this would be complex.

What the fuck? No I'm not claiming that...I'm saying if he was temporal - and therefore, uh...wasn't non-temporal - then he would be unlikely to arise from chance alone. And just as him being there from the beginning makes no difference to this matter of his improbability untill evidenced otherwise....him being outside of time, being non-temporal makes no difference either untill evidenced otherwise.

The only way you can claim that it is possible either in theory or practice to consider the scenario that "if God was temporal and arised from chance alone", is to address a God who is not actus purus, because actus purus necessitates nontemporality (e.g. God is not a potentiality which is actualised/an entity that "arises"). If you do that, then you are addressing a temporal ontology which is not actus purus, and thereby not God, and this equals to the straw man or non-sequitur[...][/quote] 1. I'm not saying he's temporal. 2. So therefore I'm not misrepresenting your argument. 3. Therefore it's not a strawman on my part. 4. You keep falsely accusing me of strawmen and giving examples of me saying things I haven't actually said, and then saying it's a 'strawman' 5. In doing this you are making a strawman of me.

I'm not saying God is temporal, I know you say he's nontemporal...

What I'm saying is that untill you evidence why nontemporal makes any difference, and untill you evidence his nontemporality itself, it makes no difference and it's dodging the question to say that he's not just as complex and improbable as if he did/i] arise from chance alone.

Just as if he was there from the beginning he's just as complex as if he arises from chance alone...he's also just as complex if he's nontemporal untill you evidence otherwise, [i]and evidence his nontemporality (and while you're at it, perhaps you could evidnece him? Even if God was somehow not that complex (lmfao) then he still requires evidence).

In other words, God cannot be temporal and "arise by chance", and still be God. A random object with a spatiotemporal and material ontology can.

I'm not saying he can (or can't for that matter), I'm not making a strawman and saying he's arising from chance. I'm saying that if he could and was temporal it would be improbable for him to do so, he would be very complex indeed - and how does it make any difference if he's nontemporal? How is this not analogous on the matter of complexity? And please provide evidence for his nontemporality, and perhaps his existence also.

A final quesiton....how do you conclude omnibenevolence in your arguments but not omnimalevolence? Why would God be good?

[Evidence please!].

EvD