(March 2, 2020 at 3:24 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:(March 2, 2020 at 3:14 am)Belacqua Wrote: I know what actus purus is. It has a clear definition.
You haven't demonstrated yet that actus purus is a lie. I don't know if there is such a thing or not, but that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about whether there is a definition for God. I have pointed to this one, many people in history have believed it. Arguing that there is no such thing would require a separate argument.
The elaborate arguments for why actus purus is God, or God is actus purus, are available to you if you want to read them.
I am not making up this attribute; many people have written logical arguments as to why there must be such a thing and why it would be God.
Again, I am not making up this attribute. In fact I think "attribute" wouldn't be the correct word for it. It is the definition that many people have for God.
Please present your arguments as to why there is no such condition as actus purus and why all those who have believed in it are incorrect. The people whose work I have read have felt that they demonstrated it sufficiently. I am not enough of an expert to judge.
Hi Bel!
So, could you unpack this 'actus purus ' for we dummies?
How does 'actus purus ' actually connect to a diety? Does the diety wear it as a hat?
Who's seen a diety with an 'actus purus'?
How often does the diety get their 'actus purus ' serviced? What sort of mileage does one of those things get, anyway?
People 'argue' for things all the time. How does one show it to be actually so?
If 'Logic', and the rules there of, are emergent properties of reality (And a side effect of our pattern generating systems) how can such apply to things like deities?
Cheers!
Not at work.
These are all fair questions (except for the joke ones!). But it's a hell of a lot to unpack in a thread like this.
In an enormously small nutshell: actus purus is the condition of complete actualization, with no potentiality. The long elaborate argument tries to demonstrate that in order for change to occur in the world, something which is already actualized must cause potential in the world to be actualized.
This is not something a deity has or sits with. It is the deity itself. Aristotle has additional arguments as to why it must be conscious. The Christians have additional arguments as to why it is cognate with their God. From what I've seen, Klorophyll thinks something very similar about the Muslim God. It's no surprise if this type of Aristotelian concept is a part of Muslim theology.
It's a lot of work to figure it all out. The only point I'm making on this thread is that it is a clear definition. Whether the thing defined is provable through logic is a separate question.