I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

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 is a viewpoint that I established specifically without any references to scripture.

I don't reject scripture, but I don't use it for a circle argument.

Scripture isn't itself an evidence that God exists, it's only in itself a record of what I believe to be the God that exists WORD, whose existence I establish wholly apart from scripture, and scriptures validity in this regard depends on the attestation of historically reliable facts. So scripture in and of itself is simply a record or collection of letters, not an evidence. It is what occured in reality that is the evidence.

And why should it fundamentally be part of causality?

Because causality implies change/division/distance in the procession of the actualisation of potentials, that there is a division in the link between cause and effect. Cause A effects B implies the distance between a causes own actuality and the effect it culminates in - or in other words, the actualisation of a potential. That in turn, implies impure actuality.

Is instantaneous causality out of the question?

If what you mean with instantaneous is without change -division/distance between cause and effect-, than that is no longer causation.

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?

There cannot be timeless causality because causality implies both cause and effect, it implies both the actuality and the potential it actualises, which implies the division or the distance, the change from A to B that we measure in time. There can be a timeless actuality, because it does not rely on the distance or division between actuality and potentiality; it relies only on its own pure actuality which itself precedes/transcends the potential. It is the prime principle that transcends the potentiality it actualises.

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).

Impure actuality receives it's actuality, and diffuses it into other potentialities. Otherwise, we are not speaking of impure actuality but pure actuality which is void of all potentialities and thereby all change -temporality, spatiality, separation, individuation, composition, matter- since change is itself the actualisation of potentialities which presupposes actuality.

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?

Since it is impure actuality, it already has received 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.

You are asking an aprioritic question which is irrelevant to the fundamental truth of the aposteriori knowledge that we have received actuality, otherwise the universe wouldn't exist. We can still answer why in various ways, but no matter how we answer it, our answer still fundamentally presupposes that we exist and that potentiality has been actualised.

To be clear on this, I'll phrase a clear question for you: Can pure reality contain impure reality?

What is pure reality and what is impure reality? These terms are not from 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 repeat this without demonstrating it. It makes no difference. Everything we say is in principle manmade; the word "manmade" is manmade. Does that mean that it's not a valid concept? That things come out of our mouthes makes it no less true and no less false.