God as personal being

[Skeptic92]

The typical arguments from cosmology, the first cause, and contingency are very convincing to me that God exists. It just makes sense to me that there cannot be an indefinite series of physical causes. There has to be something that explains its own existence, something non-physical.

What gives me some trouble, philosophically, is moving from the existence of an eternal, independent causal force to belief in a personal God. What does this mean, exactly? Does this refer to God’s will and his ability to Love? How are we to understand God as having an intellect and will, or being personal?

If we look to the definition of God via philosophia taken by the Scholastics (and even the Church) personality is not listed as a property demonstrated to be formally possessed by the Divine Essence. This is a simple statement that the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the Persons of the Blessed Trinity) is unavailable to natural reason unaided by Revelation; we can only come to a very confused, but certain, knowledge of God via philosophia and we do not possess the knowledge required to give a conclusion that God must subsist in one or more hypostasis.

You can argue that God must be supremely intelligent (and intelligence supposes that there is something like intellect and will in God) thusly;

That which is in the effect must be found either virtually, formally, or eminently in the proper cause. And an effect of creation is the existence of intelligent agents. Therefore intelligence must be found either virtually, formally, or eminently in the proper cause. Virtually supposes that it lacks the perfect formally, and is therefore a mode of imperfection. Therefore intelligence cannot be found virtually in the proper cause of creation. Therefore intelligence is found either formally or eminently in the proper cause.
If intelligence were to be found formally in the proper cause, God, then there would be really distinct faculties of power and appetite regarding intellect and will. But if they were really distinct, then God would not be Simple which is known by faith and reason; therefore intelligence is not found formally in the Divine Essence. Therefore intelligence is found eminently in Deity, and it is this power of the divine essence that is known by the name of omniscience.

By eminently it means a perfection of a higher degree, and in this case the highest degree, then if it was possessed formally. I.e if I were to physically give you a £10 note, I would «formally» possess the property of having-a-£10-note to give you. Whilst if I could print genuine currency from the printing press I would «eminently» possess the property, as I could make or create the property to give.

Try not to get too far with Philosophy; attributing personality directly to the essence rather than the hypostasis/suppositum will reduce into the error of modalism.

Also a note for several posters here; be very, very, very careful about describing God as “a” person. Whilst the very font from which personality flows and is created by is perfectly orthodox, describing God as “a” anything runs into serious issues with Divine Simplicity as taught by the Church through her universal Magisterium and the Scholastic Schools of the Suarezians, Scotists, and Thomists. William Lane Craig’s Philosophical Theology is incompatible with the Catholic Faith.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Revelation tells us from the start that God is personal.

Genesis 1:26
“Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image, after our likeness.”

Since man is a person, and made in God’s likeness, God must have conferred on man some (but not all) of his personal traits.

Moreover, St. Thomas’ teleological argument (from design) argues that God is not just a first cause, but also a designing first cause. Reason alone brings us to a personal God, but personal knowledge of that God can only be had through Revelation.

For example, that there are Three Persons in one God would be inconceivable without Revelation.

 

[Bahman]

The typical arguments from cosmology, the first cause, and contingency are very convincing to me that God exists. It just makes sense to me that there cannot be an indefinite series of physical causes. There has to be something that explains its own existence, something non-physical.

Hold on, we don’t know how is the beneath of reality, what we observe. Things could be highly interconnected underneath so it is impossible that what caused what. Trusting in chain of causality could of course lead to the first cause meaning that there is a God but the concept of God we have created has a few problems one of them is as following: Time is a part of creation and has a beginning. You can imagine a timeless God who create the universe at the beginning of time but this situation unfortunately leads to a paradox, namely there cannot be a point of reference in timeless state which God can decide and perform the creation act. The situation is paradoxical hence introducing the concept of God doesn’t resolve any problem.

What gives me some trouble, philosophically, is moving from the existence of an eternal, independent causal force to belief in a personal God. What does this mean, exactly? Does this refer to God’s will and his ability to Love? How are we to understand God as having an intellect and will, or being personal?

These as you mentioned does not lead to a conclusion that God is love, has a personality or even has an intellect.

 

[oldcelt]

Hold on, we don’t know how is the beneath of reality, what we observe. Things could be highly interconnected underneath so it is impossible that what caused what. Trusting in chain of causality could of course lead to the first cause meaning that there is a God but the concept of God we have created has a few problems one of them is as following: Time is a part of creation and has a beginning. You can imagine a timeless God who create the universe at the beginning of time but this situation unfortunately leads to a paradox, namely there cannot be a point of reference in timeless state which God can decide and perform the creation act. The situation is paradoxical hence introducing the concept of God doesn’t resolve any problem.

These as you mentioned does not lead to a conclusion that God is love, has a personality or even has an intellect.

Well argued Bahman. To move from the creator, to a personal, interventionist God requires a gigantic leap of faith. It cannot be proved, and must be taken on personal belief alone.

John

 

[ynotzap]

When God created that’s when time began, not before,or during. Time is change, there is no change in God, He is eternal, He is Existence. We did not create the concept of God, we reasoned to it. God did not create the universe at the beginning of time, time didn’t exist before creation You are right in stating that there is no reference point in eternity. God did not decided, as if He had a choice between this or that, He willed the Universe into existence, For Him everything is present, now.

True God love is to will one-well being, and this He certainly did in Jesus Christ, who is the Savior of the Universe, everything in it. God has no intellect, He is Intellect, He is LOve, He is His attributes, He is His Essence. Jesus Christ in the Hypostatic Union, has a Divine Personality.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well argued Bahman. To move from the creator, to a personal, interventionist God requires a gigantic leap of faith. It cannot be proved, and must be taken on personal belief alone.

John

To move from a creator God to an impersonal God requires far more than a gigantic leap of faith.

It requires a stupendous leap for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

 

[oldcelt]

To move from a creator God to an impersonal God requires far more than a gigantic leap of faith.

It requires a stupendous leap for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Except observation, and we all have different perspectives on what we see in this world. My conclusions indicate an impersonal creator and that we simply evolved from initial creation.

John

 

[Bahman]

Well argued Bahman. To move from the creator, to a personal, interventionist God requires a gigantic leap of faith. It cannot be proved, and must be taken on personal belief alone.
John

Thanks. I had a misprint in my writing: “Things could be highly interconnected underneath so it is impossible to know what caused what.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Except observation, and we all have different perspectives on what we see in this world. My conclusions indicate an impersonal creator and that we simply evolved from initial creation.

John

What if you are wrong and God is a personal Creator?

After all, you are not blessed with the charism of infallibility, are you?

 

[Bahman]

When God created that’s when time began, not before,or during. Time is change, there is no change in God, He is eternal, He is Existence.

There is a problem with the picture of eternal/timeless God. This God doesn’t change hence there is no point of reference in which God could perform the act of creation.

We did not create the concept of God, we reasoned to it.

How could you prove that? Moreover the reason is based on axioms which are well accepted facts, yet they are not indisputable. We either accept axioms, for example in building mathematics, or we observe them, for example in building physics.

God did not create the universe at the beginning of time, time didn’t exist before creation.

The act creation necessary requires the existence of time.

You are right in stating that there is no reference point in eternity. God did not decided, as if He had a choice between this or that, He willed the Universe into existence, For Him everything is present, now.

What he willed ever means? It simply means he did, but how he could do it when he is state of timeless and there is no point of reference to do things. This picture is corrupted. Yes, everything is preset to God and God sustain things, but how God could sustain things if there is no point of reference in which that God acts accordingly. The necessity of the reference point cannot be denied if things are subject to change hence the picture of eternal God is paradoxical since God cannot change.

True God love is to will one-well being, and this He certainly did in Jesus Christ, who is the Savior of the Universe, everything in it. God has no intellect, He is Intellect, He is LOve, He is His attributes, He is His Essence. Jesus Christ in the Hypostatic Union, has a Divine Personality.

That is only a claim. You could either believe or not and taste the consequences when your times come.

 

[ynotzap]

There is a problem with the picture of eternal/timeless God. This God doesn’t change hence there is no point of reference in which God could perform the act of creation.

Why does God need a point of reference to perform an act of creation. Do you think that God has to change to create? He is not limited by anything in His acts. He is pure Act. His creation is not pure act, but potency and act, which involves change. When God created, then that which was created was created with the characteristics of potency and act, and that is time, it is involved with created beings. Time automatically comes with our creation.

Bahman:

How could you prove that? Moreover the reason is based on axioms which are well accepted facts, yet they are not indisputable. We either accept axioms, for example in building mathematics, or we observe them, for example in building physics.

You prove it by understanding and using Metaphysics in your reasoning, based on universal truths. eg. cause and effect found in reality, in the universe, in science, which gives validity to the conclusions made, according to right, and proper logic. These truths are found in math, and physics. eg. for every action their is a reaction, the whole is the sum of it’s parts, etc, etc.

Bahman:

The act creation necessary requires the existence of time.

This is the point in which you are confused, the act of creation does not require the existence of time, as explained above, time exists with creation not as something apart but as something integral with the nature of created things.
Baham:

What he willed ever means? It simply means he did, but how he could do it when he is state of timeless and there is no point of reference to do things. This picture is corrupted. Yes, everything is preset to God and God sustain things, but how God could sustain things if there is no point of reference in which that God acts accordingly. The necessity of the reference point cannot be denied if things are subject to change hence the picture of eternal God is paradoxical since God cannot change.

God is Pure Act, not subject to time which is change, what God does, is to create, that is His act of will. There is no reality apart from God, in God we have our being, and nothing exists apart from Him. We are not part of God, He is simple. He needs no reference point to create, why? He is the reference point. I see no contradiction . Eternal means no beginning, and not end, no time in God’s life, only in His creation. Things that change (creation have reference points) God is not created, but existed forever, eternally, infinitely because He is Existence, that is His nature, He needs no reference points as we do.
Baham:

That is only a claim. You could either believe or not and taste the consequences when your times come.

I know before my time comes, I believe, and I know! God is Love.

 

[Bahman]

Why does God need a point of reference to perform an act of creation. Do you think that God has to change to create?

Because things are static from God point of view since His mind cannot change. We need a point of reference in God point of view when there exists a single change if we accept the fact that God sustains things. This is simple to understand. Let consider the situation after the creation. God knows everything hence we can imagine the whole creation as a stream snapshots which each snapshot has to become actual at the moment so called now. This requires reference point which is moving in mind of God which this require changes in mind of God otherwise God cannot sustain the change. I hope you notice that the picture is paradoxical. In simple word you cannot have both changing universe and timeless God in the same packet.

He is not limited by anything in His acts. He is pure Act.

He is limited by my reasoning unless you could provide an argument against it. Please read the previous argument. The word pure act has its own problems if you think throughly since the pure act cannot be actualized since God is perfect. Nothing can possibly comes out of perfect God since God is perfect himself.

His creation is not pure act, but potency and act, which involves change. When God created, then that which was created was created with the characteristics of potency and act, and that is time, it is involved with created beings. Time automatically comes with our creation.

Please read the previous comment. If you are not satisfied you have to accept the fact that creation as the whole is pure as well. This apparently contradict with existence of the concept of sin since the sin is not pure in another word is is not pure. So you are trapped again.

You prove it by understanding and using Metaphysics in your reasoning, based on universal truths. eg. cause and effect found in reality, in the universe, in science, which gives validity to the conclusions made, according to right, and proper logic.

What Metaphysics? We don’t know the underlying basic laws that govern our reality on the surface. We don’t know and cannot prove if there even exist any metaphysical laws unless you could present the spiritual reality to others and show that there metaphysical laws exist.

These truths are found in math, and physics. eg. for every action their is a reaction, the whole is the sum of it’s parts, etc, etc.

That is incorrect since the truth exist underneath of what we call reality if you believe in metaphysic. And if you accept so then there isn’t any truth on the surface, hence we cannot claim that math and physics are part of truth. They could be mere illusion.

This is the point in which you are confused, the act of creation does not require the existence of time, as explained above,

I didn’t say so and sorry for misunderstanding.

time exists with creation not as something apart but as something integral with the nature of created things.

That is incorrect. Time cannot be integrate with the nature of created things. Quite oppositely the nature of created things evolve by time if you understand the concept of time properly. No time, no changes. It is that simple.

God is Pure Act, not subject to time which is change, what God does, is to create, that is His act of will. There is no reality apart from God, in God we have our being, and nothing exists apart from Him. We are not part of God, He is simple. He needs no reference point to create, why? He is the reference point. I see no contradiction . Eternal means no beginning, and not end, no time in God’s life, only in His creation. Things that change (creation have reference points) God is not created, but existed forever, eternally, infinitely because He is Existence, that is His nature, He needs no reference points as we do.

Please read the previous comments.

I know before my time comes, I believe, and I know! God is Love.

God is love. What Love does even mean? What does that sentence even mean and how love could be related to act creation? A God who is not love or anything else can create universe for no purpose! How you could disprove all possible Gods when you have no access to metaphysical laws and what God could really be? These are all nonsense claim unless you can prove oppositely.

 

[Rohzek]

Why does God need a point of reference to perform an act of creation. Do you think that God has to change to create? He is not limited by anything in His acts. He is pure Act. His creation is not pure act, but potency and act, which involves change. When God created, then that which was created was created with the characteristics of potency and act, and that is time, it is involved with created beings. Time automatically comes with our creation.

I keep seeing this crop up so often here, and I cannot help but find it to be completely irrational. Acts don’t have ontological existence. So by saying that God is pure act you are either a tacit pantheist because then how else can you distinguish God from his creation, since there is no defining essence of God, OR you’re a tacit atheist because you’re basically saying God has no real existence.

 

[ynotzap]

I keep seeing this crop up so often here, and I cannot help but find it to be completely irrational. Acts don’t have ontological existence. So by saying that God is pure act you are either a tacit pantheist because then how else can you distinguish God from his creation, since there is no defining essence of God, OR you’re a tacit atheist because you’re basically saying God has no real existence.

How is it irrational? Anything or entity that is in Pure Act, whatever it can be, it will be, nothing is in potency which is a real capacity to be, or become. In God there is no potential, no capacity to be or become, He is all that He can be and always is. Creation shows constant change, a movement from potency to act. A child can become a man, a seed can become a flower, one can move from ignorance, to having knowledge, there is a continual process of movement , life and creation is dynamic, changing. God is all that He can be, no capacity left unfilled (in a manner of speaking). He has no capacity, just Being (pure Act) Existence is His Essence. He is called the Unmoved Mover, and the Uncaused Cause. Ontology is the science of Being qua Being, the ultimate causes and effects in reality. I explained this to Bahman check above posts We have our existence in God, but we are not part of God, if we were we would have always existed To be part of God is pantheism, God has no parts, He is simple. by the cosmological argument from effect to cause, it is shown that an Uncaused caused is necessitated to explain our existence which is not our nature, we had a beginning God is one with His attributes, He is His essence, His essence is existence, this is ontology.

 

[Rohzek]

How is it irrational? Anything or entity that is in Pure Act, whatever it can be, it will be, nothing is in potency which is a real capacity to be, or become. In God there is no potential, no capacity to be or become, He is all that He can be and always is. Creation shows constant change, a movement from potency to act. A child can become a man, a seed can become a flower, one can move from ignorance, to having knowledge, there is a continual process of movement , life and creation is dynamic, changing. God is all that He can be, no capacity left unfilled (in a manner of speaking). He has no capacity, just Being (pure Act) Existence is His Essence. He is called the Unmoved Mover, and the Uncaused Cause. Ontology is the science of Being qua Being, the ultimate causes and effects in reality. I explained this to Bahman check above posts We have our existence in God, but we are not part of God, if we were we would have always existed To be part of God is pantheism, God has no parts, He is simple. by the cosmological argument from effect to cause, it is shown that an Uncaused caused is necessitated to explain our existence which is not our nature, we had a beginning God is one with His attributes, He is His essence, His essence is existence, this is ontology.

It is irrational solely because you claim God has an ontological existence, yet simultaneously claim he is pure act. In other words, precisely for the reasons I initially stated. Actions don’t have actual existence but are merely abstract concepts. There is no being in an action. A good example of this is the sentence: “Walking is good.” “Walking” is not a nominative noun, but a nominative gerund. Why? Because the action itself lacks an essence/ontological existence. This aspect of language is universal to all human languages, which suggests that it therefore part of our natural logic. So either you accord this contradiction the same status of a divine mystery as has been done with the Trinity, or you abandon the premise altogether. I’m inclined towards the latter. I think Aquinas was terribly mistaken to use Aristotle in this case.

The alternative to this within the whole “potency and actuality” framework might seem just as untenable, because then you have to admit that God has some unfulfilled characteristics which implies imperfection. At which point, you either have to adopt entirely new criteria for what it means to be perfect, or abandon the whole framework of “potency and actuality” altogether as insufficient. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time Aristotle has been discredited.

 

[ynotzap]

It is irrational solely because you claim God has an ontological existence, yet simultaneously claim he is pure act. In other words, precisely for the reasons I initially stated. Actions don’t have actual existence but are merely abstract concepts. There is no being in an action. A good example of this is the sentence: “Walking is good.” “Walking” is not a nominative noun, but a nominative gerund. Why? Because the action itself lacks an essence/ontological existence. This aspect of language is universal to all human languages, which suggests that it therefore part of our natural logic. So either you accord this contradiction the same status of a divine mystery as has been done with the Trinity, or you abandon the premise altogether. I’m inclined towards the latter. I think Aquinas was terribly mistaken to use Aristotle in this case.

The alternative to this within the whole “potency and actuality” framework might seem just as untenable, because then you have to admit that God has some unfulfilled characteristics which implies imperfection. At which point, you either have to adopt entirely new criteria for what it means to be perfect, or abandon the whole framework of “potency and actuality” altogether as insufficient. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time Aristotle has been discredited.

I believe you fail to see the ontological truths are related to objective reality, not just idealistic concepts, but concepts that are abstracted from objectivie reality, not subjective reality. Change in the nature of the Universe is an objective truth. This is expressed as potency and act, from a state of having the capacity to change, and to changing, and the changing doesen’t mean you have fufilled the entire capacity, it is a continual movement towards maturity, or completion. These truths are always present in all fields of knowledge. You don’t seem to follow what is being said. To say God is Pu;re Act, is to say, as has been said that God is Pure Being, that what act is a movement towards ,complete being, in created things, in God there is no movement towards complete being because His is Pure being, Pure Act

 

[Rohzek]

I believe you fail to see the ontological truths are related to objective reality, not just idealistic concepts, but concepts that are abstracted from objectivie reality, not subjective reality. Change in the nature of the Universe is an objective truth. This is expressed as potency and act, from a state of having the capacity to change, and to changing, and the changing doesen’t mean you have fufilled the entire capacity, it is a continual movement towards maturity, or completion. These truths are always present in all fields of knowledge. You don’t seem to follow what is being said. To say God is Pu;re Act, is to say, as has been said that God is Pure Being, that what act is a movement towards ,complete being, in created things, in God there is no movement towards complete being because His is Pure being, Pure Act

No, I rather understand well what you’re saying. Furthermore, I do agree that ontological truths are related to objective reality. In addition, I do not believe ontological truths are simply idealistic concepts. In fact, I am accusing you of believing just that.

Change in nature of the Universe is not an objective truth. Why? Simply because measuring change requires time. So then we must ask ourselves, “What is time?” For eons, humans thought time was a concrete, absolute, and objective thing. Even Newton thought this. However, Einstein’s theory of relativity totally blew this out of the water. Time is completely subjective. For example, time moves slower for someone moving near the speed of light, than it would for someone taking a nap in their bed. The consequence of this finding is then that change must also be subjective. In other words, change is nothing more than the application of our individual thought material (res cogitans) to ontological realities so as to give them meaning. In other words, change itself is nothing more than an abstract concept. So when you say God is pure act, you’re merely suggesting in my view that either you have a very outdated and disproven view of time (Classical Time) or that you don’t believe God really exists.

This scientific and logical finding completely undermines your idea that Pure Act=Complete Being. Acts or changing are nothing more than the application of our individual thought material to an ontology, so as to give it meaning. But when you say that there is just act, you implicitly state that there is no ontology to which the meaning is applied to. You get around this by saying that Act=Being, but this cannot be true because then you would either have to endorse an outdated notion of time, or argue that even the simple action of walking has an ontology. It is not the action that has ontology, but the being who does the action that has ontology. So thus walking doesn’t exist ontologically speaking, but I who walk exists.

 

[ynotzap]

No, I rather understand well what you’re saying. Furthermore, I do agree that ontological truths are related to objective reality. In addition, I do not believe ontological truths are simply idealistic concepts. In fact, I am accusing you of believing just that.

Change in nature of the Universe is not an objective truth. Why? Simply because measuring change requires time. So then we must ask ourselves, “What is time?” For eons, humans thought time was a concrete, absolute, and objective thing. Even Newton thought this. However, Einstein’s theory of relativity totally blew this out of the water. Time is completely subjective. For example, time moves slower for someone moving near the speed of light, than it would for someone taking a nap in their bed. The consequence of this finding is then that change must also be subjective. In other words, change is nothing more than the application of our individual thought material (res cogitans) to ontological realities so as to give them meaning. In other words, change itself is nothing more than an abstract concept. So when you say God is pure act, you’re merely suggesting in my view that either you have a very outdated and disproven view of time (Classical Time) or that you don’t believe God really exists.

This scientific and logical finding completely undermines your idea that Pure Act=Complete Being. Acts or changing are nothing more than the application of our individual thought material to an ontology, so as to give it meaning. But when you say that there is just act, you implicitly state that there is no ontology to which the meaning is applied to. You get around this by saying that Act=Being, but this cannot be true because then you would either have to endorse an outdated notion of time, or argue that even the simple action of walking has an ontology. It is not the action that has ontology, but the being who does the action that has ontology. So thus walking doesn’t exist ontologically speaking, but I who walk exists.

I don’t know what happened to my post but it completely disappeared, and I am too tired to repeat at this time, Ispent a lot of time preparing it, sorry. But I disagree with you in many places. Walking has a lot to do with ontology, and change .

 

[Michael_Mayo]

God as a personal being? I was thinking that God is far beyond our understanding of “Person” but that does not mean “impersonal”…rather trans-personal, meta-personal, hyper-personal, or super personal. More personal than we can conceptualize but certainly not impersonal.

 

[ynotzap]

No, I rather understand well what you’re saying. Furthermore, I do agree that ontological truths are related to objective reality. In addition, I do not believe ontological truths are simply idealistic concepts. In fact, I am accusing you of believing just that.

Change in nature of the Universe is not an objective truth. Why? Simply because measuring change requires time. So then we must ask ourselves, “What is time?” For eons, humans thought time was a concrete, absolute, and objective thing. Even Newton thought this.

Change is an inherent condition of the material universe, and it is an objective truth. We witness it all of the time, movement of all kinds producing change. Causes and effects. Movement is used to measure change or time. eg. a clock is designed to measure time, and how is it done? the movement of the hands of the clock pointing to numbers representing hours and minutes are calibrated by math principles used in the design of the clock. there is no perfect clock simply because the material used in its design are changing, wearing out. So the clock is not a perfect instrument to measure time, but close. Math deals with conceptual principles that represent perfection, but thats because the concepts are of a spiritual nature and can contemplate infinity. Material things are finite, therefore limited. But a clock is close enough, an atomic clock,is even closer but even the frequency changes, so it is not perfect because of change inherent is material things. I can go deeper by speaking of Potency and Act, but I will reserve that at this time.

Rohzek:

However, Einstein’s theory of relativity totally blew this out of the water. Time is completely subjective. For example, time moves slower for someone moving near the speed of light, than it would for someone taking a nap in their bed. The consequence of this finding is then that change must also be subjective. In other words, change is nothing more than the application of our individual thought material (res cogitans) to ontological realities so as to give them meaning. In other words, change itself is nothing more than an abstract concept. So when you say God is pure act, you’re merely suggesting in my view that either you have a very outdated and disproven view of time (Classical Time) or that you don’t believe God really exists.

Time is not completely subjective, a produce of mind, it is movement producing change in created things that we are aware of in the objective world. We didn’t make it up. Time does not move slower for one who is traveling the speed of light, which is to me is science fiction, than a person taking a nap. The only difference I see is if one can travel the speed of light, then he will cover more distance, then the person sleeping in the same amount of time. You can’t relate one who is not traveling, but is sedated, to one who is traveling, so the relationship dosen’t apply And how can you measure relationship, if there is no absolute or concrete anchor, or permanent reference? Einsteins theory is just that a theory, a mixture of truth and and error.
Change is always taking place, time is divided into past, present and future, all involving movement. Human life eg. Is a movement from a fertized ovum, the conceptus, to a fully developed adult, then a movement to decomposition. The conceptus had to have the capacity for change (the potential) and to fulfill that capacity, there had to be a movement, when the movement took place then the potential became the act, that perdetermined effect produced by the movement, the adult. The adult is one of the stages, a becoming human being, for he keeps changing, decomposing once physical maturity has been reached. Then old age, and death to the body, it changes into the material element found in earth. In God there is not such movement, because He is all that He can be, His being in not a becoming being, but with no change, He is Pure Being, no potency, just act, no capacity, just completion or fulfillment, His is all He can be. He is Existence, and all of His attributes, they are one in Him

Rohzek:

This scientific and logical finding completely undermines your idea that Pure Act=Complete Being. Acts or changing are nothing more than the application of our individual thought material to an ontology, so as to give it meaning. But when you say that there is just act, you implicitly state that there is no ontology to which the meaning is applied to. You get around this by saying that Act=Being, but this cannot be true because then you would either have to endorse an outdated notion of time, or argue that even the simple action of walking has an ontology. It is not the action that has ontology, but the being who does the action that has ontology. So thus walking doesn’t exist ontologically speaking, but I who walk exists.

Ontology is the science of Being qua Being, the ultimate cause and effects in reality, I am trying to understand you use of the concept. thoughts are real, and there are different levels of thought. The concept, or idea derived from objective reality, the outside world, the quantitative level, (mathematical), and the qualitative ( the Metaphysical which encompasses the Ontological which is just one branch of Metaphysics. When speaking of God it is in the Ontological, the ultimate cause, the uncaused-cause, and the unmoved mover, who is God, Pure Act, and Pure Being from which all being is derived, and all motion is derived.