(August 10, 2009 at 6:35 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)amw79 Wrote: I disagree, I've read up on 'actus purus', throughout this debate (although one really couldn't call it that, as direct questions do not seem to get direct answers), and it is, for me, simply an empty phrase with no inherant meaning. If you get life-enhancing meaning from such word salad, great; but don't expect anyone else to accept meaningless definitions from a discipline whose whole purpose is to assert the unproveable.Since you say actus purus "has no meaning", and is an empty phrase "for you", this can only mean you don't understand the contexual evidence of potentiality that it builds on, without which it indeed is incomprehensible and doesn't have meaning. It's meaning lies in the distinction between actus and potentia. I can only recommend you to look this up, though I have already described it numerous times. What you need to understand is what kind of realities these terms are referring to, as the point with them is exactly to distinguish between different kinds of realities in the context of the temporal plane of existence. Wikipedia has an article about actus et potentia; the Catholic encyclopedia has one as well. I can recommend both to some extent, though neither are elaborative.
I have read up on all the above terms, and more besides. Arse-gravy, the lot. Concepts invented by theologians in order to attempt to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion - God.
As these theologians are merely subjective minds, I reserve my right to dismiss their conjecture.
In some of my googling of these terms, I found another atheist forum which you had infiltrated, which went round and round in a similar manner - with you asserting the same arguments, and very often falling back on the "You just don't understand", as you have done again here.
I do understand, I just don't accept your arguments, as they are set up as unquestionable, unverifiable, and indemonstrable.
