I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Purple Rabbit]

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.

OK, scripture is out the window. Then what exactly is your non-scriptural evidence that connects the biblical god to omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the whole of non-contingent actuality? Enlighten us.

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.

Ever thought about how that can be?

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.

OK, that's nice when you're short for an answer, but which ultimate definition of time do you arrive at from pure natural reason?

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.

That's no definition of time really, is it? You can't define iron by saying it is fundamentally a part of the chair in which I am seated, just like the wood in the back of my chair. You name no characterizing property of it and you are not even narrowing down on a wider concept. And why should it fundamentally be part of causality? Is instantaneous causality out of the question? It seems to me your throwing in a lot of unsubstantiated assertions just by defining time this way. Again it does not even make an attempt to comment on its dependence on the spatial reference frame of the observer. You claim to know a lot about time (it's fundamental in some way, causality cannot do without it) but on closer inspection you could have been defining space instead. And you again miss essential features. Do you know anything about time in the physical framework? What happens to causality when time is
non-existent? Can there be timeless causality? If no, then why ask for causation of a universe in which time itself could have been created? Have you any evidence that time existed prior to our impure actuality called the universe?

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.

I am not claiming that. I am claiming that some impure actuality (say a physical obkect) can cause events of other impure actualities (other physical objects).

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.

That is clearly what we see in our universe. The physical (say impure actuality of an electron) over here causes something to happen to the physical (say the impure actuality of an atom) over there. While there is no indication that some divine force is moving the electron fram A to B. Or are you saying that your god is moving all electrons around in the universe and that without his support they wouldn't move?

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.

Just read what I have written. I do not claim that impure actuality does not have potentiality. I merely rephrased your own claim that pure actuality has no potentiality.

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.

Why should your pure actuality, being without any potentiality itself, iow being complete and absolute by itself, ever 'actualise' something outside itself? Don't say "just because" now, for that's circular.

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.

I have merely restated your words. What am I turning around?
To be clear on this, I'll phrase a clear question for you: Can pure reality contain impure reality?

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.

I read agreement here.

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.

You fail to define characteristics of nature in any coherent and precise way, yet you claim from it validity for your logical system. You fail to show a necessary relation between nature and your man-made concept of pure and impure actualities. You link their interaction to causality, yet you fail to show why causal chains necessarily have to have beginnings. Your system is incapable of explaining any subtlety in the workings of nature yet you claim that it is fundamental to it. This is arguably the worst case of overestimating the potentials of a logical construct to underlie reality I've seen so far. Also it is the best case against advanced theology so far. For that I thank you.