(August 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: 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.Well, how about actually reading it? Then you would know it. Now you are just repeating that "there isn't evidence" - but you haven't in any way refuted or even addressed the links I gave, both to the long expositions in the Summa and my own posts.
(August 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: 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!Exactly. Not actus purus, and therefore not God, and therefore not anything like God. If he was not actus purus, he would not be maximally perfect, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, subsistent, or anything else either, because all these facts are only attributions that follow from actus purus and do not exist on their own.
(August 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm)EvidenceVsDelusion Wrote: and then I'm asking....what fucking difference does actus purus make untill you evidence that it does?If you don't understand what difference it makes yet, then you are incapable of understanding it.
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
-G. K. Chesterton
-G. K. Chesterton