I would give a like, but I can't.

Déjà vu. 8-)

God is pure actuality. — bahman

Two questions: 1) what are your grounds for this assertion? 2) What do you imagine the consequences of your assertion are? (Beyond the ridiculous notion that god cannot decide.)

And let me save you some trouble by suggesting how you might start: First, by defining your terms. Next by making clear the connections between the terms. Finally, by extracting conclusions from the parts of your thinking that you can make reasonably clear. Absent these, you're not really making sense.

Huh?

That was different argument.

Two questions: 1) what are your grounds for this assertion? — tim wood

Potentiality generally refers to any "possibility" that a thing can be said to have.
Actuality, in contrast to potentiality, is the motion, change or activity that represents an exercise or fulfillment of a possibility (the definition of potentiality and actuality are derived from Wikipedia).
Pure actual means that there is no potentiality in God or in another word God is fully fulfilled.

2) What do you imagine the consequences of your assertion are? (Beyond the ridiculous notion that god cannot decide.) — tim wood

Only this one, God cannot decide. Do you have something else in your mind?

And let me save you some trouble by suggesting how you might start: First, by defining your terms. Next by making clear the connections between the terms. Finally, by extracting conclusions from the parts of your thinking that you can make reasonably clear. Absent these, you're not really making sense. — tim wood

I provided the definitions. The rest should follow simply. Let me know where do you have problem and we can start from there.

I provided the definitions. The rest should follow simply. Let me know where do you have problem and we can start from there. — bahman

Better than fair! Let's start here: potentiality is, in respect of what is potential. But whatever is potential isn't (in itself) actual.

"God is pure actuality." This is a proposition. Usually propositions are either true or not-true. God is here undefined. Either "pure" is an adjective, or "pure actuality is a noun substantive. Because God is usually characterized as unknowable, we can only take propositions about God as hypothetical. The usual reason for positing a hypothetical is to see what the consequences might be.

Let's suppose and assume true that [1] God is pure actuality. We can't convert this: [2] pure actuality is God is not a valid conclusion from [1]. If God and pure actuality are not names for exactly the same thing, then God and pure actuality are different, and it follows that because God cannot be less than pure actuality, then he must be more. The more can only be impure actuality and non-actuality.

The only sense I can make of impure actuality is as an admixture of actuality and non-actuality. Non-actuality can only comprise a) that which isn't (actual) and will never be actual, and b) that which isn't actual but that could be actual, i.e., potential.

The bridges between actual and potential usually traverse time and possibility. In as much as God is eternal (either that or there is/will be pure actuality that God is not); that in eternity everything that can be will be (if not, why not?); and that God exists outside of/transcends/is not subject to time, then the potential just is the actual for God. As a corollary, the impossibility of the impossible is also actuality, so the impossible in its non-actuality is also actual for God.

What is a decision? A decision is an actual that actualizes a potential. From above it follows not that God can make a decision - a decision is a function of time and possibility, best understood as something that people do - but rather that God is decision, is all possible decisions, and of impossible decisions, the impossibility of them.

If you don't agree, then I must ask you continue with your excellent practice of offering definitions by defining "God".

I leave to you working out what follows if God exactly is pure actuality.

Better than fair! Let's start here: potentiality is, in respect of what is potential. But whatever is potential isn't (in itself) actual. — tim wood

Good. I agree.

"God is pure actuality." This is a proposition. Usually propositions are either true or not-true. God is here undefined. Either "pure" is an adjective, or "pure actuality is a noun substantive. Because God is usually characterized as unknowable, we can only take propositions about God as hypothetical. The usual reason for positing a hypothetical is to see what the consequences might be. — tim wood

Yes. Pure actuality is a noun. I use pure to stress that God is actual in all His attributes.

Let's suppose and assume true that [1] God is pure actuality. We can't convert this: [2] pure actuality is God is not a valid conclusion from [1]. If God and pure actuality are not names for exactly the same thing, then God and pure actuality are different, and it follows that because God cannot be less than pure actuality, then he must be more. The more can only be impure actuality and non-actuality. — tim wood

Yes, you can say that pure actuality is God.

The only sense I can make of impure actuality is as an admixture of actuality and non-actuality. Non-actuality can only comprise a) that which isn't (actual) and will never be actual, and b) that which isn't actual but that could be actual, i.e., potential. — tim wood

Yes, I agree.

The bridges between actual and potential usually traverse time and possibility. In as much as God is eternal (either that or there is/will be pure actuality that God is not); that in eternity everything that can be will be (if not, why not?); and that God exists outside of/transcends/is not subject to time, then the potential just is the actual for God. As a corollary, the impossibility of the impossible is also actuality, so the impossible in its non-actuality is also actual for God. — tim wood

This is contrary. Potential cannot be actual.

What is a decision? A decision is an actual that actualizes a potential. From above it follows not that God can make a decision - a decision is a function of time and possibility, best understood as something that people do - but rather that God is decision, is all possible decisions, and of impossible decisions, the impossibility of them. — tim wood

I don't agree with the proposition "God is decision" given the definition of decision.

If you don't agree, then I must ask you continue with your excellent practice of offering definitions by defining "God".

I leave to you working out what follows if God exactly is pure actuality. — tim wood

I think that is your turn to answer to my objections.

potentiality is, in respect of what is potential. But whatever is potential isn't (in itself) actual.
— tim wood
Good. I agree. — bahman

This is contrary. Potential cannot be actual. — bahman

It might rain tomorrow. Tomorrow's rain is potential. The possibility - the potentiality - is actual.

I don't agree with the proposition "God is decision" given the definition of decision. — bahman

Do you agree that there is such a thing as change? And do you believe that change is in any meaningful with respect to God - can God change or cause change? (If you do, how?)

It might rain tomorrow. Tomorrow's rain is potential. The possibility - the potentiality - is actual. — tim wood

No. As you said and I agreed potential isn't actual.

Do you agree that there is such a thing as change? — tim wood

Yes.

And do you believe that change is in any meaningful with respect to God - can God change or cause change? (If you do, how?) — tim wood

God cannot change but it can cause change. He can only perform one eternal act.

No. As you said and I agreed potential isn't actual. — bahman

*sigh* Let's look at it again:

potentiality is, in respect of what is potential. But whatever is potential isn't (in itself) actual.
— tim wood
Good. I agree. — bahman

Read with me: "potentiality is, in respect of what is potential. But whatever is potential isn't (in itself) actual.

"It might rain tomorrow." This sentence is actual; I wrote it and you just read it. The present possibility - the potentiality - of rain tomorrow is actual. The rain referred to is not yet actual, and may never be actual. It follows that the potential of anything/everything is actual.

what does god need to decide on ?

is it realistic to think that this phenomenon that connects us all internally and exists in a realm impossible for us to fathom .... we think he needs to make decisions ?? when he will make it rain ?


the concept of god or life nature is one that does not need decisions , it follows a pure way of existence .... with integrity ... it is loyal to its nature hence there is no deviation from what is ....

what decisions would god need to make ? .......