I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Purple Rabbit]

Are you even on this earth? You just attached omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the whole of non-contingent actuality to the words "I am" written in a book that is a text bundle from multiple tribal sources of goat herders that lived several thousands years ago, copied, altered, revised, re-interpreted many times since then. If that is coherence to you, than anything can follow.

No, I attached it to historical events which are recorded in scriptures.

If you claim to investigate truth from reason and empirical observation, as you've said before, you should know that scripture alone is not enough to credit what scripture says. This is circular reasoning.

Another claim you haven't substantiated.

I have, but you have not listened.

I'll come to that in a minute.

Argumentam ad arrogantiam. You have done nothing to show that the powers you claim for your god cannot be the powers of a Hindu god or Zoroastra or my vacuum cleaner.

None of them are coherent with what I would expect for God based on natural reason, such as God as pure actuality exhibiting the transcendent attributes, and the teleotic relationship between God and Man, in analogy.

That you don't understand the vocabulary they use is not a valid reason to dismiss them beforehand. Ahura Mazda according to advanced Zoroastrian theology was the uncreated Creator. Sound a lot like your pure actuality to me.

If you cannot come up with hard evidence to distinguish my claim for my vacuum cleaner from your claim of your christian god, than you don't deserve my devoted attention to your postings.

I can easily distinguish them. The foundation I have without resorting to revelation excludes all notions of God which define him as anything else than pure actuality in his purely transcendent form, and specifically mandate a teleotic relationship to man, not to vacuumcleaners which are simply a creation of man that attest to mans intelligence that makes for his telos and godlikeness.

Firstly you do not know if my vacuum cleaner was really man made or just appears so to us. Secondly, it would seem a rather non-intrusive way for pure actuality to emanate itself in impure actualities. What is worse, an absent god or a god that emanates itself in this humble form to give us all an example.

You reason from a formalized metaphysical system that a god, or rather pure actuality, exist. Your formal system is fallacious in itself, as I will show further on, but it really shows that you are not really basing this on empirical observation when you try to gap the bridge to reality. For instance you define time as the distance between causal events. This is a definition of time intervals that neglects the dependence of time on the spatial reference frame of the observer and it shows that your understanding of time is seriously flawed, i.e. not in accordance with observation. From this it is clear, that you do not start from empirical observation at all to devise your metaphysical system. It more looks like special pleading to me, you attach notions of reality to a metaphysical system devised to reach but one conclusion.

You claim that your view is demonstrable from pure reaso yet ultimately it is dependent not only on empirical observation:
"I also believe natural theology establishes the existence of God as the pure actuality which is necessary for the actualization of any potentiality, and since we empirically observe the progressing actualization of potentialities by means of a causal regress to the very actuality of causality, this provides the basic foundation for the contention that God exists, because of our radical contingence." (accentuation by me)

but also on your personal ability to perceive alternatives:
"I believe I am in right reason when I accept God's existence as truth. In the first run because I don’t believe anything else is a possibility, without logical self-contradiction." (accentuation by me)

Why is your formalized logical system fallacious in itself? Because you conclude that impure actuality necessarily prerequisites pure actuality. Although the connotation of the language you use (impure versus pure) heavily suggests this, the connotation of words cannot be an argument in itself. So the question is, is it possible to conceive of impure actuality without pure actuality? In your formal system pure actuality is the plug to the bath tub. But if we do away with suggestive connotation of the words you use, we are left with the essence of your stance: a causal chain must necessarily have a begin. Well, this is a clear non-sequitur, for we can easily perceive of endless causal chains. There is no logical contradiction in that. In your words we can perceive of a system of endless impure actualities.

And this is not the only logical flaw in your thinking. The pure actuality you devise as a plug to your bath tub, lies necessarily 'outside' all impure actualities. In other words pure actuality cannot be part of impure actualities and impure actualities cannot be part of pure actualities. On top of that you claim that pure actuality has no potentiality, in other words it is absolute and complete by itself. Then why should an absolute, complete actuality cause someting outside itself an impure actuality even. This is self-contradictive reasoning. It pure actuality is what you say it is, it cannot cause anything 'outside' itself.

Also when it is pure actuality it cannot contain our reality since that is made up of impure actualities as empirical findings readily suggest that causation is all around.

Also that impure reality cannot contain pure reality means that 'natural reason' which you credit as the main capability to evaluate these claims on a personal level, is impure by its very nature and cannot be trusted on its own merit.

It thus seems that the formalized system you are adhering to is both logically flawed (self-contradicting) and not conclusively supported by empirical observation, and that while I haven't really begun to address all its flaws here in full colour.