I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

If this is indeed correct, is it not possible for there to be more than one and perhaps an infinite number of these entities? And if not, what is preventing this from happening?

What is pure actuality must be one since there is no way for one thing to differ from another in its being unless there is some real potentiality for differentiation. But in a being of pure actuality there is no potential whatsoever. Hence, there there is no real differentiation in it. All of it is one; there cannot be two or more, since neither would really be different from the other in its being and would thus be one, rather than two.

[Darwinian]

If this is indeed correct, is it not possible for there to be more than one and perhaps an infinite number of these entities? And if not, what is preventing this from happening?

What is pure actuality must be one since there is no way for one thing to differ from another in its being unless there is some real potentiality for differentiation. But in a being of pure actuality there is no potential whatsoever. Hence, there there is no real differentiation in it. All of it is one; there cannot be two or more, since neither would really be different from the other in its being and would thus be one, rather than two.

---

If this is indeed correct, is it not possible for there to be more than one and perhaps an infinite number of these entities? And if not, what is preventing this from happening?

What is pure actuality must be one since there is no way for one thing to differ from another in its being unless there is some real potentiality for differentiation. But in a being of pure actuality there is no potential whatsoever. Hence, there there is no real differentiation in it. All of it is one; there cannot be two or more, since neither would really be different from the other in its being and would thus be one, rather than two.

First of all, how strange that you replied twice to a question about whether there could be two

Anyway, if you are saying that there could not be two God's because they would be exactly the same with nothing to differentiate between them this then poses the question about God himself.

The problem is that God must therefore be one way and have one unique characteristic and could never have existed in any other form because, as you state, all other possible God's that may have existed would have been no different from the original thus negating the possibility of any variation.

This would suggest therefore that God had no choice in existing or have any say in the characteristics that he may posses as no matter how many God's may come into existence, they are all exactly the same.

This further suggest that there must have been environmental landscape at play to be able to impose such a strict criteria of conditions forcing this, and any other God's, to be one specific thing and never another.

So, where did this environment with it's rigid God making criteria come from?

[Jon Paul]

This would suggest therefore that God had no choice in existing or have any say in the characteristics that he may posses as no matter how many God's may come into existence, they are all exactly the same.

God does not "come into existence", a temporal designation that doesn't apply to a transcendent being, so your question is fallacious at it's root. And as I've said, there cannot be many gods, because that implies the potentiality for separated individuating differentiation in pure actuality, and in pure actuality, there is no potentiality, only actuality. As to whether God has any choice in his existence; God is himself the autonomic and subsistent actuality of existence, so his eternal act of existence is equal to his actual existence.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Wasn't it you that said you couldn't say some things without resorting to the psychobabble you use? Yet now you say I am saying the same thing (and I used English)! Seems to me you just contradicted yourself and that you should try to talk English instead of complete bollocks!

It's only psychobabble if you don't understand it, aren't willing to spend time or energy to understand it, or are just looking for an excuse to discount it without engaging the substance in it.

Nice dodge (and BTW I included the full quote, the rest in italics, so no one would think that was all I said to you), maybe you'll actually answer the question sometime? Oh, and I never said the other bit you attributed to me!

Kyu

---

God does not "come into existence", a temporal designation that doesn't apply to a transcendent being, so your question is fallacious at it's root. And as I've said, there cannot be many gods, because that implies the potentiality for separated individuating differentiation in pure actuality, and in pure actuality, there is no potentiality, only actuality. As to whether God has any choice in his existence; God is himself the autonomic and subsistent actuality of existence, so his eternal act of existence is equal to his actual existence.

In which case the multiverse also never came into existence in a temporal sense (time being a an attribute of our universe) ... so what created what (and how do you establish this to be so beyond fairytale wishful thinking?

Kyu

---

What is pure actuality must be one since there is no way for one thing to differ from another in its being unless there is some real potentiality for differentiation. But in a being of pure actuality there is no potential whatsoever. Hence, there there is no real differentiation in it. All of it is one; there cannot be two or more, since neither would really be different from the other in its being and would thus be one, rather than two.

All this psychobabble about pure actuality and all that is just a dodge to stop you having to make any sense ... all it is is post modernist claptrap!

Kyu

[Darwinian]

God does not "come into existence", a temporal designation that doesn't apply to a transcendent being, so your question is fallacious at it's root.

Therefore, your entire argument is based on the existence of a realm that lies outside all the known laws of space and time. A realm that cannot be examined or investigated or be subjected to any known tests or experiments. A realm that cannot, by universal standards, exist as the very nature of existence requires a temporal dimension.

[Jon Paul]

God does not "come into existence", a temporal designation that doesn't apply to a transcendent being, so your question is fallacious at it's root.

Therefore, your entire argument is based on the existence of a realm that lies outside all the known laws of space and time. A realm that cannot be examined or investigated or be subjected to any known tests or experiments. A realm that cannot, by universal standards, exist as the very nature of existence requires a temporal dimension.

That is certainly not the case. Not according to modern physics, and not according to anything but your own assertion. And what's funny is that this objection is in direct contradiction with Kyu's. I will just let the humour of that fact stand for itself.

In which case the multiverse also never came into existence in a temporal sense (time being a an attribute of our universe)

Well, whether a thing is temporal or not isn't the sole criteria for pure actuality (since that's what you errorneously assume). Angels are not held by Christian metaphysics to be temporal in the sense of the universe, either, but they are not God for that reason.

All this psychobabble about pure actuality and all that is just a dodge to stop you having to make any sense ... all it is is post modernist claptrap!

Right. I have already told you denying the reality and difference between actuality and potentiality is not going to work. It's not in accord with modern physics nor with any basic intuition about reality. And those terms are certainly not post-modernist, they have been used in a 2500 long philosophical tradition and their use survives to this day in modern physics and metaphysics.

[Darwinian]

That is certainly not the case. Not according to modern physics, and not according to anything but your own assertion. And what's funny is that this objection is in direct contradiction with Kyu's. I will just let the humour of that fact stand for itself.

See, you do have a sense of humour....

[Jon Paul]

That is certainly not the case. Not according to modern physics, and not according to anything but your own assertion. And what's funny is that this objection is in direct contradiction with Kyu's. I will just let the humour of that fact stand for itself.

See, you do have a sense of humour....

What are you saying? Laughing is from Satan!

[Dotard]

There's no magic in it. My explanation is rational and clear.

Bullshit.

All you are doing is saying all the complexity is in one god therefore all=one. It's singular. See? It's simple.

Just another variation of 'Goddidit'.

Before you say it, I don't give a damn that it was some long dead catholic dudes who came up with this load of bullshit first.

Aged bullshit is still bullshit. Ancient apologetic malarky does not rationality make.

[Jon Paul]

Bullshit.

All you are doing is saying all the complexity is in one god therefore all=one. It's singular. See? It's simple.

Just another variation of 'Goddidit'.

Before you say it, I don't give a damn that it was some long dead catholic dudes who came up with this load of bullshit first.

Aged bullshit is still bullshit. Ancient apologetic malarky does not rationality make.

Possibly I have never seen anyone miss the mark to this length. What a truly incoherent and unclear interpretation. This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.