but I don't know why the PAA would have to have all the characteristics of God

So we agree Purus actus must exist correct?

yes I agreed to that a long time ago

I just think they can exist in an additional capacity than a substance

I've refuted that

It must be a substance

why?

Because it's *actual*

wait define actual again

To be in existence in a certain respect

so anything actual is a substance?

Yes

shouldn't this mean that processes are a substance?

No

since a process is actual

Processes are parasitic on things that are actual

but they still exist no?

Like flowing water just signifies water that is flowing

They don't exist in the way that we call things actual

okay then which certain respect does something need to exist in to be actual?

again I'd rather just move past this point, I don't think we'll see eye to eye on it

I'm curious how we manage to get from this point to your position so why don't I just concede this for the sake of argument?

Sorry, phone died

So pure act must be one, non composed, omnipotent/omniscient, etc

It has all the properties of the theistic God

why does the pure act need those qualities?

we could start with omniscient I suppose

Omniscient requires the other points to explain itself

okay which point do we need to start with?

No,
38) Whatever is in an effect, is in in the cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently. (The principle of proportionate causality).
39) The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things.
40) So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.
41) These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.
42) They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things.
43) So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of the intellect.
44) So the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.
45) Since it is the forms of all things that are in the thoughts of this intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts.
46) For there to be nothing outside the range of something's thoughts, is for that thing to be omniscient.
47) So the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.

This is the omniscience argument

38)all in universe, so the "creator" doesnt have to follow that rule cos is not governed by the laws of the universe

this was my original problem with the last series of points

Which was refuted

that it seems we just create a new type of substance which is exempt from the restrictions placed on it

I didn't do that at all

well no

because alternatively we could call point 7 into question

We did, and I explained it

and more simply say not all substances require a precursor

either option eliminates our worries