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

they're really doing the same thing

We discussed this, then you simply have to extend that to each attribute and you are back at Pure act

it's the difference between "everything falls into this category except these types of things" and saying "not everything falls into this category"

it's effectively the same thing

I am one of those who think that the universe creates itself

Why are you discussing if you aren't going to even acknowledge my words

and my english is really bad so i cant really discuss about that

right because at that point we can apply this quality of non-contingency to anything we want

like the universe itself

Dude, I'm done if you keep ignoring me

I feel that I've addressed each of your arguments.

You haven't, maybe you think you have, but I'll say something and you'll say some random other statement

Hm I don't think you've addressed all of my arguments either then.

Either you've understood nothing, or you are ignoring me

what are your positions?

you both

I'm going to sleep now, we'll discuss some other time.

Well right now we're discussing whether non-contingency as a property must exist.

alright buddy sweet dreams

@Spider Sutra and so we see why I won't waste my breathe on you.
Do yourself a favor, go back and read through Proverbs again. Everytime "fool" is mentioned, put your own name in it's place and I guarantee, the context won't change any. You're a self serving self righteous ignoramus, as Eoppa said, "peak atheism". Where the religious seek to convert, the irreligious seek to controvert. You argue for the sake of arguing and have nothing greater to offer. I respect the right to belief, but atheism is not a belief and fools like you give me no reason to respect your position.

Go on now, say something else smug.

<:really:591181753625083905>

Something is missing, huh?

> <:really:591181753625083905>
@Spider Sutra
<:smug:591181720565579807>

I see your default smug "really" face and raise you a Pepe.

@closedanger nah.