I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

It's irrelevant that you have seen the post. You haven't refuted it's contents.

What's to refute? Where's the evidence? I see a bunch of non-sequiters....how does it get to the conclusion that God is simple??? Evidence is required here.

And no, it's not circular reasoning, the Summa Theologica is not scripture, and even when it has references to scriptures, it gives natural arguments.

I see no reasoning or evidence so how can I refute what isn't there from my view? And as for the reffences in scripture they have, indeed, got fuck-all to do with the matter because they can't argue the position at all, because that would be circular.

You are exactly not talking about that, and I didn't say you were.

Do you know what a strawman is then? Because if I haven't claimed or even implied that God is temporal then it isn't a strawman because I'm not misrepresenting your argument. What I am doing is making an analogy....I'm saying that what difference does nontemporality make untill you evidence it? How does that effect his complexity? How is his complexity not analogous to if he was temporal? He still has the same problem. I'm asking questions here and saying untill you provide evidnece you are just asserting that nontemporal makes any difference.......so how on earth am I making a strawman?

And as I have said repeatedly...I am not making a logical self contradiciton because you're not even reading what I said properly there lol! I have said repeatedly that if he was temporal and therefore not nontemporal then it would be improbable if he arose from chance alone....and nontemporal makes no difference untill you evidence that it does. How many more times have I said that it's if and that I'm making an analogy?

And that's what I addressed. You cannot speak of a hypothetical scenario in which the ontology of God wasn't nontemporal - because then you are not addressing the ontology of God, but the ontology of something else which isn't actus purus.

Exactly! I'm asking what fucking difference it makes. I am not hypothesising the actus purus God and then saying he is temporal when that's a contradcition! It's an analogy! I don't have to address actus purus to ask what fucking difference it would make if actus purus could be temporal! How would that be any more complex? How is nontemporality making it any different? What fucking difference does it make whether he's temporal or not untill you give evidence for these claims? And if it makes no fucking difference then you are just dodging my questions when you pretend that it does! Evidence please!!

The ontology of God necessitates nontemporality (e.g. actus purus is not a potentiality which is actualised/an entity that "arises", but pure actuality and not a potentiality and with nothing of potentiality), and if nontemporality is not the case, it means actus purus it not the case, and in such an if-scenario, we are no longer speaking of God.

This is all psychobabble though untill you give evidence. It doesn't matter if I say God to be temporal or not if either way there's no evidence.

This is the part about divine simplicity you haven't understood - all of Gods attributes are equal to and necessitated by Gods being, and not arbitrarily predicated. You cannot take one away, therefore. It's all or none.

And in this deistic argument....where does Christ come in to make it a Christian argument?

And as I have said....how are you concluding omnibenevolence and not omnimalevolence, I wonder?

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

No.

I reply: no, it is a self-contradiction

No because I'n not saying that. How many more times? I'm saying if he was exactly the same as actus purus but not atemporal, and yes! bravo! - therefore not actus purus! - and he arose from chance alone, that would be complex and improbable......and then I'm asking....what fucking difference does actus purus make untill you evidence that it does? How is his his complexity - his improbability - not analogous to that? Evidence that it makes any difference please!!

I can also ask, "if a green apple was not an apple, but an orange, then this or that". But then I am no longer addressing an apple, nevermind a green one.

Actually from my perspective what you're doing is you're addressing apple A, and I'm attacking apple B and asking how apple A is any different...and you're saying that I'm defining B as A when they're different by definition so I'm making a strawman.......actually I'm making an analogy because I don't see the fucking difference in the matter of this complexity issue untill you evidence it to be otherwise!!

EvD