well I don't know what you mean about "pure act"

i have never seen the argument presented this way lol

Well this was Aristotle and Aquinas' presentation, the passage normally cited in the Summa is just an offhand comment basically compared to the actual theology of it

Pure act is something that fundamentally is the ultimate actualizer of potential, which holds no potential in itself, ie immutability of some sort.

This still seems a lot like the first mover argument

just worded differently

It is

This is the original argument

..

The Prime mover

which in turn

bares a lot of similarity to kalam

No

ok thats why i was confused

Kalam is about per accidens

o

Aquinas is an Aristotelian

Kalam is Arab

well I suppose the next step is to prove that the prime mover is God

Well the next 36 steps are a brief proof to prove it's immutable, eternal, incorporeal, immaterial, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, omniscient, and intelligent

Brief in that each step could be expanded to a whole other 50 steps

If we really wanted

Let's take immutability, as we already touched on that, pure act cannot change

As it has no potentiality to actualize

God *cannot* do something?

Wrong

Doing is act

o ok continue

Being changed is potency

ah better question

could I not pull something out of my ass

that has all those properties

No?

and how are these properties only limited to the Christian God

sure i could

Well it excludes Hinduism, and all polytheistic religions

Any religion like pagans who think the Gods are corporeal or material

But at this point you cannot be an atheist

So far all you established is that there is a pure act

And it's necessary ramifications

Immutability, unity, etc