Is Christianity and Belief in God RATIONAL?

[Kenny]

Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

Matter, energy, and any possible combination of the two are still mixtures of potentiality and actuality. Matter can be arranged one way or another. Energy can fluctuate in countless ways and that regardless of the possibility of them being eternal. The fact is, if they have the potential to be arranged one way or another then they depend on something else to bring about that potential. You can't escape it, for any potential to be actualized the chain must initiate with a pure act and that pure act must be unique. That's what reason dictates. To deny that you must deny change. Of course that is your prerogative but I wouldn't recommend it as a world view.

I’m not understanding why any potential to be actualized must be initiated with a pure act; why can’t it just be actualized by something eternally existing?

[Kenny]

Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

Look, Cells, material and energy, all of them are NOT pure ACT, are they?
Name me ONE thing that you think is pure Actuality, something that is, factually, unmoving/unchanging/uncaused ( and no, you can't say the universe because we know it is changing ie: expanding).

I only suggested the possibility that multiple things could be eternally existing. You guys are the ones claiming pure act; I’m just going along for the sake of conversation in order to understand the points you guys are making

[PaulSacramento]

Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

Look, Cells, material and energy, all of them are NOT pure ACT, are they?
Name me ONE thing that you think is pure Actuality, something that is, factually, unmoving/unchanging/uncaused ( and no, you can't say the universe because we know it is changing ie: expanding).

I only suggested the possibility that multiple things could be eternally existing. You guys are the ones claiming pure act; I’m just going along for the sake of conversation in order to understand the points you guys are making

We are not claiming "pure act", we are reasoning to that effect since, logically, that is were reason leads us.
Do you agree?

[Kenny]

Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

Look, Cells, material and energy, all of them are NOT pure ACT, are they?
Name me ONE thing that you think is pure Actuality, something that is, factually, unmoving/unchanging/uncaused ( and no, you can't say the universe because we know it is changing ie: expanding).

I only suggested the possibility that multiple things could be eternally existing. You guys are the ones claiming pure act; I’m just going along for the sake of conversation in order to understand the points you guys are making

We are not claiming "pure act", we are reasoning to that effect since, logically, that is were reason leads us.
Do you agree?

If pure act is always s existing, and always in a state of action, then that would make sense to me.

[PaulSacramento]

Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

Look, Cells, material and energy, all of them are NOT pure ACT, are they?
Name me ONE thing that you think is pure Actuality, something that is, factually, unmoving/unchanging/uncaused ( and no, you can't say the universe because we know it is changing ie: expanding).

I only suggested the possibility that multiple things could be eternally existing. You guys are the ones claiming pure act; I’m just going along for the sake of conversation in order to understand the points you guys are making

We are not claiming "pure act", we are reasoning to that effect since, logically, that is were reason leads us.
Do you agree?

If pure act is always s existing, and always in a state of action, then that would make sense to me.

Do you agree that is something is pure act then that it can't be "missing" anything? in other words that there is NO POTENTIAL to be something else ?

[Kenny]

Consider cells, material, and energy. If those have always existed, that would make them all first causes and clearly distinguishable from each other.

Look, Cells, material and energy, all of them are NOT pure ACT, are they?
Name me ONE thing that you think is pure Actuality, something that is, factually, unmoving/unchanging/uncaused ( and no, you can't say the universe because we know it is changing ie: expanding).

I only suggested the possibility that multiple things could be eternally existing. You guys are the ones claiming pure act; I’m just going along for the sake of conversation in order to understand the points you guys are making

We are not claiming "pure act", we are reasoning to that effect since, logically, that is were reason leads us.
Do you agree?

If pure act is always s existing, and always in a state of action, then that would make sense to me.

Do you agree that is something is pure act then that it can't be "missing" anything? in other words that there is NO POTENTIAL to be something else ?

Only if there is one pure act. If there are multiple, everything must be covered between the multiples.

[PaulSacramento]

Only if there is one pure act. If there are multiple, everything must be covered between the multiple

s.

How can you have multiple things that are all pure act?
If something is Pure Act it has NO potential to be acted upon so it is missing nothing, if it is missing nothing, how can there be more than ONE ?
How would you distinguish between them?

[Kenny]

Only if there is one pure act. If there are multiple, everything must be covered between the multiple

s.

How can you have multiple things that are all pure act?
If something is Pure Act it has NO potential to be acted upon so it is missing nothing, if it is missing nothing, how can there be more than ONE ?
How would you distinguish between them?

Perhaps "pure act" isn't a requirement for eternal existence.

[PaulSacramento]

Only if there is one pure act. If there are multiple, everything must be covered between the multiple

s.

How can you have multiple things that are all pure act?
If something is Pure Act it has NO potential to be acted upon so it is missing nothing, if it is missing nothing, how can there be more than ONE ?
How would you distinguish between them?

Perhaps "pure act" isn't a requirement for eternal existence.

Actually, it would be a must since for something to be eternal it can't be subject to time ( decay, ie: change).

[Kenny]

Only if there is one pure act. If there are multiple, everything must be covered between the multiple

s.

How can you have multiple things that are all pure act?
If something is Pure Act it has NO potential to be acted upon so it is missing nothing, if it is missing nothing, how can there be more than ONE ?
How would you distinguish between them?

Perhaps "pure act" isn't a requirement for eternal existence.

Actually, it would be a must since for something to be eternal it can't be subject to time ( decay, ie: change).

Not subject to time? What does that mean? It seems to me if "X" exists eternally, time would have to exist eternal as well because time can be applied to anything that exist.

[PaulSacramento]

Only if there is one pure act. If there are multiple, everything must be covered between the multiple

s.

How can you have multiple things that are all pure act?
If something is Pure Act it has NO potential to be acted upon so it is missing nothing, if it is missing nothing, how can there be more than ONE ?
How would you distinguish between them?

Perhaps "pure act" isn't a requirement for eternal existence.

Actually, it would be a must since for something to be eternal it can't be subject to time ( decay, ie: change).

Not subject to time? What does that mean? It seems to me if "X" exists eternally, time would have to exist eternal as well because time can be applied to anything that exist.

Something Eternal ( not immortal) has always existed and will always exist, so time has no effect on it. It is NOT subject to time and so is outside time.
As you know, Time is subjective and only started with the beginning of the universe.