and why you use the same word at all

which means they share something in common

So you’re making a case on the inexplicable nature of God?

@Enkrum this is a continuation of last nights debate with blueroad. The question is, if god has desires, which necessitates potentiality by the definition of desire (as explained above) than how can he be Pure actuality

man has desires in this way because he is not omnipotent obviously so there is potential for him to be out of accordance with his desires
god does not have this for obvious reasons
the example you gave made no sense
you have yet to give a coherent example

I’m fairly certain Thomas Aquinas explained this in his thesis.

i cannot see any instance in which god is not in accordance with his desires

Regarding the topic of potentiality.

yes but he didnt address this point because its not really an argument tbh

@Spergerger he is not in accord with his desires if his desire is for us to do the right thing and we're not doing it

i dont see how you can ignore this

lol

it doesnt matter whos the subject of his desire

its still his desire

@Spergerger Of course, because he’s omnipotent. What we think of desires correlating to potentiality is our material worldview of it. We cannot effectively depict the exactness of God’s desires for the world, but we ultimately know that he is in accordance for them.

no
thats wrong
he desires us to choose to do the right thing
if we cannot choose then he would actually be out of accordance

@Blueroad

am i missing something, because i keep repeating the same argument, and dont feel like theyre even grasping us

but you seem to think that god didnt intend to give free will or somthn

@Spergerger did god desire to give us free will?

at some point, we didnt have free will, so he was out of accord with that desire and had the potential to be in accord with it

he desired us to have free will
and he is not out of accordance with that at any time ever in the history of humanity

lol

we have always had free will ffs

Kant made an argument on that in his novel.

lol

okay

EOC im gaining nothing from this debate

talk to me after you have a good think about what the actual argument is

Why, because no one follows your nonsensical contrarianism?

Which is effectively composed of strawman arguments?

lol

strawmen arguments

right

As far as I recall, you’ve just been a sperg this whole time, while casting the blame on others.

so thats two incoherent example in which you fail to demonstrate a supposed lack of accordance
but they were basically just 2 ways of saying the same thing
so its more like 1 incoherent example

like what you guys have been responding to me this entire time @Enkrum

lmao

i think this debate is concluded
theists won obviously
we need some kind of scoreboard actually

lmao

People have provided a slurry of explanations, each varying in content, but essentially carrying the same message. So I would say their theological perspectives are fairly well-founded.