I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Purple Rabbit]

[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
Enough words, what is your answer to my question? To be more precisely what occured in reality which you can substantiate with clear evidence that connects the biblical god to omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and to the whole of non-contingent actuality?

I believe I have already anwered this question sufficiently. Since you posite a need for "clear evidence" and since it is subjective what this means, there is no point in going more into it anyway.[/quote]
That's two answers. If you have already answered the question than please provide the number of the post in which you did. It will cost you only limited effort.
If the term clear evidence is too subjective for you to handle than tell me what criteria for evidence you use.

[quote='Purple Rabbit']
OK, let's do this step by step. Your claim is that the physical concepts you are presenting here as facts are verifiable from empirical observation in nature and from natural reason and that they fit your model of pure and impure actualities and potentialities. This implies you have deep knowledge of the concepts of space, time and causality. I therefore need to know exactly what you mean with your answer.

No, it does not imply I have deep knowledge of space time and causality.[/quote]
Oh, exclude the possibility beforehand that empirical evidence disproves your model? I thought it was based on empirical observation. But if you meant that only certain empirical observation is allowed, than say so and provide the criterion with which you choose the relevant empirical observations.

It implies we can observe what happens in reality without having deep knowledge before hand; otherwise it would not be aposterioritic.

The difference between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge has nothing to do with the level of knowledge. So this really is a dust cloud you are throwing at me. Your answers more and more become entrenched in your obvious lack of knowledge on the nature of the things you base your argument on (causality, spacetime, etc). If you base yourself, as you say, on what you can observe in reality you are referring to a posteriori knowledge, i.e. empirical knowledge and your model is effectively open to alteration since more empirical data mean that the model can be falsified. If your model cannot be falsified you must be relying on a priori knowledge that can withstand empirical findings on any level of knowledge. This implies that it has to be absolute complete a priori knowledge that will never be falsified by empirical observation. So you have to choose: either your model is a relative model that can be falsified by empirical data or you are claiming absolute a priori knowledge and you can answer any question on any level. It seems you have chosen for a falsifiable relative model from a posteriori knowledge. Yet you claim absolute truth by it. This is a clear contradiction.

[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
1. How would you define causality? Are you referring to accidental causality, essential causality or stochastic causality?

These distinctions are not of any consequence to my claim as they all involve causality at the root of the reality we observe, even if our information of specific causal processions within the universe in its totality is incomplete. I have already defined causality several places, as well, but causation always means means dependence of one set of parameters, A, on another set, B.[/quote]
You dodge the question. These are vastly different concepts of causality not just variant of the same. It shows you have no knowledge of these concepts at all.

[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
2. You say causality implies change. IOW, if there is causality there is change. Do you mean there can be no uncaused change? And is this verified by empirical observation in nature?What I have said is rather that causation is a process which inherently involves change. For me to answer more specifically, you'd have to define "uncaused change". A change with no cause? A change in what?

I don't know what you mean exactly with uncaused change.[/quote]As in quantum mechanics which in essence is acausal. How does QM fit in your model? Or take atom decay, it's is uncaused and it is change. How does it fit your model?

[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
4. You say causality implies division. IOW, if there is causality there is spatial and temporal division. Can there be no division without causality? Does this mean that simultaneous events cannot have a causal relation?

No, it doesn't mean that simultaneous events can have no causal relations. What I meant was not just spatiotemporal division, but division at the very root of the thing: cause and effect, dependent-upon and depended-upon.[/quote]
You are aware of the fact that simultaneity is dependent on the frame of reference, are you? If you insist that cause and effect are temporally and spatially divided, these concepts are dependent on the frame of reference. Or are you just supplying a statement about division that has no specific meaning? Sometimes it refers to temporal division, sometimes to spatial division and sometimes to logical division between cause and effect. Again your total lack of the basics of these concepts in our reality shows. Still you pertain that your model is rigid and can withstand any empirical observation. Are you god or only godlike?

[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='24092' dateline='1248630081']
5. When observing the motion of a binary star system, which is the causing event and which is the resulting event?

This is a physical question of observing specific celestial objects and the nature of their gravitation which is irrelevant to my claim, as my claim does not deal with such specific physical phenomena of celestial objects in the spatiotemporal realm.

Again this is dodging the question. I am not asking about the nature of their gravitation. I am just asking how you can distinguish cause and effect in this situation? It is a classic question in the realm of causality for the math shows that it can be formulated time-independent and no physical meaning can be given to cause and effect. Which is quite disturbing for your model.

I am rather dealing with the general phenomenon of our realm in itself.

That's a nice sentence but void of any meaning. Which realm in itself are you referring to?

[quote='Jon Paul']And as I've said, whether we have complete information about the instances of causal processions or not is irrelevant to whether we know that causation happens even if we don't have the data of the totality of the information that can exist about the universe.

In the case of stochastic causality, there is no denial that causation is absolutely happening without any ambiguities, only that our information of specific instances of such is limited. But we can observe and understand the general fact of it, and additionally understand specifities in great detail even though we are not omniscient and don't have all the information of the totality, which is what probabilistic causality is all about when it comes to understanding specific physical phenomena within the universe.

Listen, your claim is that the whole of reality fits in your model. You definitely need to know if our reality has exceptions to your rule. You definitely need to be sure it all fits in there before making the claim. You are presenting this not as a falsifiable model of our reality, which is what scientific models are, but as absolute fact. This shows you are, possibly unaware of it, in a special pleading scheme. Think again, think for yourself, come away from dogma.