I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

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?

I have explained all of this. Why Gods attributes are what they are, in numerous posts. But the specific ones you mention, are summarised in this post:

I've already answered all of thein many posts. I've made clear that God is not an intellect like a human is. Here, here, here, here.

(..)

As to Gods simplicity, a long exposition from the Summa here.

As to Gods goodness and perfection, here, here, here. As to Gods love, here, here. As to truth and God, here.

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. .

I know what you claimed. I skipped the word "being".

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 didn't say you said explicitly he was temporal. Read what I said again.

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.

You claim that if an atemporal being (actus purus) was temporal and arose from chance alone, this [being] would be complex. I reply: no, it is a self-contradiction, it cannot be even in theory nevermind in praxis, because it contains a contradiction in terms. 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 of pretending to make significantive conclusions about the status of actus purus complexity by addressing the status of complexity of something which is not actus purus. Since it is not actus purus, it would have none of the other attributes of God, either; such as omnipotence, omnipresence, eternality, omniscience, etc, since all of these attributes are ultimately equal to actus purus, and are not arbitrarily predicated, and do not exist without actus purus. 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 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).

Again, you repeat exactly what I addressed. This discussion is worthless; you understand nothing.