I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

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.

I have never said that it is so.

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.

As I've already said, there are bits and pieces in many religions which fits in with my conception of God.

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.

I have defined time in several ways through this thread. But more than anything I have defined it as fundamentally a part of causality/impure actuality, just like space. In other words, time and space are both part of the same fact.

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.

We cannot perceive of impure actuality as being the source of it's own actuality. Then it's no longer impure actuality, but pure actuality, which our universe clearly is not, as we observe empirically in its attributes of temporality, spatiality, matter, etc.

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.

Pure actuality has no potentiality, because then it's not pure actuality. Impure actuality means actuality with/of potentiality. So I am certainly not saying that impure actuality does not have potentiality, to the contrary.

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.

Pure actuality doesn't really "cause something outside of itself", it actualises potentialities in and of it's actuality. We cannot speak of causality and space here (cause, outside), only the purely actual principle in and of causality necessary for it's own actuality.

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.

It simply actualises our potential reality, and as soon as that has happened, impure actuality exists. So you are turning it the wrong way 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.

Are you serious? Now you have gone completely overboard. The words "pure" and "impure" are not some kind of qualitative judgements of a product for consumption or of its reliabillity. They concern only whether or not something is made up purely of actuality or impurely of actuality with potentialities in it.

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.

You haven't shown any flaws in my propositions. So if there are any, please, enlighten me.

---

As I thought, you can 't elucidate your arguments, and have simply re-quoted yourself. You can add the phrase "epistemic foundation" (or any derivitave of..) as many times as you like, but it adds nothing to your point, and simply serves as word salad.

I pointed out the logical fallacy implicit in your very question. So if you really want an answer, you have to ask a question which is not a fallacy itself.

The phrase "at least see what kind of perspective on morality your worldview mandates" is ludicrous, the implication being that YOUR 'worldview' has a superior perpective on morality. Your worldview on morality is based on deferring to an infallible moral certainty, dictated by one who's mind we can never know; which negates any responsibility (or credit) for the evolution of morality.

That's not at all what I'm talking about. What I meant was this: that outside of monotheistic such as Christian worldviews, morality will always simply be an illusory distraction which is not a truth and which has no binding authority sanctioned by anything but subjective minds, which thus never transcend subjectivity and never reach objectivity, as in the case of God.

Which worldview is superior is up to yourself.

If you want to make moral judgements with validity and without contradicting the epistemic/noetic structure of your own worldview, then the Christian monotheistic worldview is completely superior.

If you don't want to make moral judgements and you want everything to be permissible, then the non-Christian non-monotheistic worldview is completely superior.

The problem is of course, that there are moral judgements implicit in literally any human beings utterances, so that the latter worldview is humanly impossible because it necessitates self-contradictions.

And you've completely ignored that what I said applies to logical truths and jugements as well, not just moral truths and judgements.

Also, I note that on page 1, there was a question re transubstantiation. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on that question.

I forgot posting my answer to that. Thanks for reminding me.

Do you really believe in transubstantiation? If you do, do you accept that it is a cop-out? In other words, do you accept that the "miracle of the wafer turning into the flesh of Christ whilst similarly miraculously remaining indistinguishable from any other wafer" is simply a flawed way of looking at things, and that there is no way of actually verifying if anything miraculous even occurred?

I don't believe transsubstantiation is a "cop-out", nor do I believe it is supposed to be a "proof" of anything. In other words, it's not an isolated doctrine which we claim apart from everything else. It is subordinate to everything else in the faith, it is not in itself something intended to prove something else, or be proved by something else. It is only an article of our affirmation of Christ as God, it falls on whether or not Christ is God.