I appreciate the time you put into this Miguel.  It’s terrifically helpful. 

I had not thought of the forces as abstractions, so if there are board members who can illuminate this subject further for us, I would very much welcome their input.

In any event, I have not had the conversation with him re act/potency — in those terms.  I’ve been a bit slow to do that because this is his first experience with “philosophical” concepts (he asked me once, “what does philosophy mean?”).   I think it’s time to wade into those waters.  Till now, I’ve been trying to keep the discussion at a “practical” or experiential level and not have it sound esoteric to him.  Does that make sense?

Guys,

I’m talking to an atheist relative (Dave) and can use some guidance here.   The last convo I had with him went like this...

Dave was holding a bottle as we were talking about the necessity of a Being, not just to bring things into existence but, sustain them in existence. Dave said, “are you telling me that this empty plastic bottle is being kept in existence by God right now?” I said, of course, and went through this explanation:

We started with the premise that a thing can not be changing (or in motion) without an other causing it to change, and then I said,

1. The bottle is changing because you recognize that it is in the process of decay, given sufficient time, even though your senses do not observe that; he conceded this;
2. In fact, the bottle is in motion or changing — just to be in existence — as we speak; because it is composed of molecules, the components of which are atoms;
3. Within atoms, change is occurring because the components of each atom are neutrons, protons and electrons, and physicists tell us they are literally in motion; he agreed;
4. And within those atomic components are sub-components such as quarks, leptons and other things such as antimatter or antiparticles; and those are also in motion;
5. Science tells us these are fundamental particles; but my argument will not change if science discovers matter even “more fundamental”;
6. We know these subatomic particles are kept in motion and interact with each other through certain forces known as fundamental forces, i.e., gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong forces (even science one day discover forces “more fundamental,” the argument isn’t affected);
7. So, Dave, what is causing these fundamental forces to be here and acting right now? Something has to be causing them to be in motion (our initial premise).
His response: “Nature is causing the forces to act because that’s just how things are.” My reply was “You wouldn’t accept that as an answer to al

@Johannes, thank you for clarifying. 

If we set aside God being Triune for a moment, are we able to infer from reason that the “greatest operations” of spirit are knowing and loving?

What I am asking is how is it that we conclude that the two great operations of Spirit are loving and knowing?

ficino wrote:

Thank you for your thoughtful answer, Miguel. If Feser and Davies are right to reject Theistic Personalism, can an adequate account of promises be given, if the maker of the promise is personal but not "a person"? I would guess you would say, yes, and construe a denial of "God is a person" differently from, say, a denial that a non-rational being is a person.

 
I second the Thank You to Miguel!

@miguel, when you get a chance, please check your inbox.   Could use your feedback on my last msg to you.