Christianity, rationally defended, introduction

[Brucknerian]

Serious critical responses from members are welcome, pertaining to the works that can be found via the two links below. I'm a serious Christian, by serious meaning one who analyzes God's Word with the view of trying my best to understand it on its fundamental level. Did you know that what philosophers call 'the problem of evil' is answered in the Bible? ... and that there are ways to prove God's existence outside of the Bible, through pure critical reasoning? The links lead to a work that can be downloaded for free from Philosophy Papers Archives. The titles are "Rational Theism, Part One ..." and "Rational Theism, Part Two...." The first part puts forth an a priori proof of God's existence that conforms to the critical demands for such a proof as put forth by the philosopher/metaphysician Immanuel Kant. It includes an Appendix that clarifies Kant in this regard, and the Appendix will help those both familiar and unfamiliar with Kant to comprehend more clearly what Kant had in mind in his "Critique of Pure Reason". "Rational Theism, Part One" can be called a Theory of Everything (TOE) in the true sense. To understand this you'll have to not just read, but comprehend the pure conceptual system of understanding it advances. I believe not everyone will be suited to such a task as it puts a serious strain on one's conceptual abiloities--artists, or creative thinkers are more likely to understand the system of understanding than those who simply breeze through works with no real intent to understand a work on its deepest level. The second work, "Rational Theism, Pat Two..." is a Biblical Exegesis that presents the Bible's answer to the problem of evil, and it is an answer that apologists have failed to understand, having sought for an answer to the problem outside of the scriptures. If you have ever wondered why, if there is a God, there is such evil as we see and hear about in the world, that reaches back to the dawn of civilization, you might be interested in learning the answer that's apparent in the Word. It's very clearly delineated and its surprising at least to me that it has gone completely unnoticed. There are five dozen scriptural passages that are included that when put together, reveals the answer. The two works can also be called philosophical, and probably more this, than just another apologetic, and this should become more and more clear as one goes through the works. Let me know what you think. Are the works a contribution to serious Christian understanding, and debate, are they a staunch defense against atheism; or are they just the same old usual apologetics?

https://philpapers.org/archive/LIIRTP-2.pdf
https://philpapers.org/rec/LIIRTP-3

[fredonly]

I DON'T BELIEVE IN TH UNNATURAL...EXCEPT WHEN I DO.

May I briefly return to your belief system. ....

... the fundamental basis of physical reality would exist uncaused. I believe something is uncaused ...

It is impossible for physics to infer either that something exists uncaused ...

.... I believe something is uncaused ...

QUESTION #1Does your belief in the existence of an uncaused something (Xxx) that is the fundamental basis of physical reality amount to believing in something unnatural (ie it falls outside of your definition of the natual world)?

The unnatural: any hypothetical object not covered by 1-4.

I already answered this:

What is this thing you believe was "uncaused" ? Upon what evidence do you claim anything CAN be uncaused? (ie there anything uncaused in The natural world to indicate such a thing is possible?)

There is no way to know what it is. I gave you my reasoning for concluding something exists uncaused. My logic doesn't rule out something unnatural, however I see no rational reason to believe anything unnatural exists.

The natural:

1. Everything in the world that we directly perceive
2. Everything that is inferred to exist through physics
3. Everything that is causally connected through laws of nature to 1&2
4. The complete mereological makeup of everything entailed by 1-3.

The unnatural: any hypothetical object not covered by 1-4.

Whatever is the fundamental basis of physical reality would exist uncaused...

... the stuff that became the universe is unanalyzable with current physics.

... Refering to "material reality" leaves open the possibility of the immaterial (existing independently of the natural world) ...

Why did you omit the rest of that quote of mine, which I highlighted above, in large, bold, blue text?

[fredonly]

The unnatural: any hypothetical object not covered by 1-4.

AN OBJECT

Something material that may be perceived by the senses - Merriam-Webster

... physics* doesn't infer anything immaterial existing

* Physics is the scientific study of matter

Merriam-Webster is not the best source for philosophy. An "object" is simply something that exists.

I surmise that our communication problem is due to your lack of understanding of general metaphysics. I highly recommend that, in the future, you ask for clarification- by reflecting back what you think the other person means and asking for confirmation of your understanding. Also, start being willing to explain what YOU mean, instead of pointing to a standard dictionary.

You clearly have a LOT to learn. It's not so clear you are willing to learn.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why did you omit the rest of that quote of mine, which I highlighted above, in large, bold, blue text?

Because I am first seeking clarification on what is "unnatural[/color]". I cannot address your conclusions about the unnatural until I understand where your actual beliefs fall in this regard (see next post below)

I highly recommend that, in the future, you ask for clarification- by reflecting back what you think the other person means and asking for confirmation of your understanding. ...

Excellent advice...see below

[JehovahsWitness]

The following is my understanding of what you have posted about your belief system. ....

.... I believe something is uncaused ...

You believe in the existence of something that is uncaused. Is this correct? Please be so kind (for clarification's sake) to say yes or no.

It is impossible for physics to infer either that something exists uncaused ...

It is impossible for physics to infer this belief that you have in something uncaused.

... the fundamental basis of physical reality would exist uncaused ...

You believe this uncaused something the existence of which is impossible for physics to infer... is the fundamental basis of physical reality. Is this correct?

MY CONCLUSION Your belief in the existence of an uncaused something (Xxx) that is the fundamental basis of physical reality amounts to believing in something unnatural (as per the definition you taught me)?

I already answered this:

Yes but it is still not clear to me whether you would classify your belief in this uncaused something "unnatural " or not. My understanding is that it would, am I correct ? Yes or No.

Thanks so much,

JW

The natural:

1. Everything in the world that we directly perceive
2. Everything that is inferred to exist through physics
3. Everything that is causally connected through laws of nature to 1&2
4. The complete mereological makeup of everything entailed by 1-3.

The unnatural: any hypothetical object not covered by 1-4.

[JehovahsWitness]

An "object" is simply something that exists

Interesting; is an object something that can be proven by physics to exist or anything that exists?

My understanding of what you have kindly taught me is that ANYTHING that exists, whatever its properties (whether it can be proven by physics or not ) can be classified as "an object" , is that correct?


(I am just seeking clarification on what you have posted)

[TRANSPONDER]

An "object" is simply something that exists

Interesting; is an object something that can be proven by physics to exist or anything that exists?

My understanding of what you have kindly taught me is that ANYTHING that exists, whatever its properties (whether it can be proven by physics or not ) can be classified as "an object" , is that correct?


(I am just seeking clarification on what you have posted)

Apart from the apparent theist trickery of trying to find an atheist - stumper ('can't say what an 'object' actually is...so one doesn't really know anything for sure') and being a bit of a nit -pick and a semantic fiddle (this is what JW apologetics has come down to, folks) an Object (real existing thing) is like asking what a fact is, which I have seen come up in discussion of the epistemology or 'how do we know what we know' kind which, is the same object, to try to pretend we really know nothing so as to scrape a draw.' for theist apologetics.
And it doesn't work, of course, as as the 'clarification' is well known the o atheist apologetics.

A real thing, fact or Object is what exists or is true, in reality, no matter what humans think about it, or whether they know of it or not.

A Fact...and this is the clarification that is vital to keep in mind when discussing science or epistemology - is something we know, for sure. Never utterly, like we can be sure the sun is a hot star, but one could claim it was an illusion caused by technologically advanced aliens, and the same with human history which was actually fabricated on an ET alien computer ten minutes ago. But those are improbables without any real evidence that we dismiss, and go with what we all apparently know as a 'facts'. The sun is a real object and we trust science that it is a star we rotate about.

We also trust science that the world is round and not flat, and we know that some dispute that. Is it a fact or not? One claim is true, so do we trust the science as to the fact? Do we trust science as to the age of the earth and evolution? That is disputed.
The fact (objectively) is one or the other, but fact to us is what we can rely on, when the evidence is explained. Unless we dismiss the evidence and rely on faithclaims.

The evidence for evolution is pretty compelling (e.g cetan sequence), so those who debunk it have to cheat, frankly. Like appeal to Abiogenesis which makes no more difference to evolution rather than 6 day creation than a debate about whether the Christian or muslim religion is 'true' makes any difference to whether a god exists. Or the other way around, in fact
,
Or here, as I recall whether the universe/Cosmos has always existed or at one time didn't exist makes any difference to the god - claim, which is merely a claim without any really good evidence.

cue, I suppose, whether an eternal universe or uncreated nothing can itself produce cosmic stuff like virtual particles. Just as an analogy of what is possible, or at least not impossible, it would seem to make less likely the conclusion that theism as to force on we-yall; 'nothing can come from nothing'. That is not a 'fact' as it cannot happen, we are told; we never see it is nature, they clamour at us (yes we do, virtual particles are known) or at least, we must explain the mechanics and prove it with evidence.they pester us with,

No we don't, no more than we -yall aye -theeists have to show that life came from non - life or consciousness came from evolved animal neural circuits, or that morals are an objective Thing or Fact if humans made ethics up or God has to have Made It, as a life guide once and for all, with regilar updates, fought tooth and nail by His Church, until they give in and say they taught that all along.

No, the burden of proof falls, logically and evidentially, on the god - claimant to show good reason why goddunnit is the default rather than nature dunnit, and this is what it is all about and why Theism is always wrong about loigic, epistemology, evidence, facts and objective truth, because it cannot ever understand the burden of proof and the materialist default, because the whole theist mindset is based on Godfaith, and you may bet on that as a more sure thing than Kamala winning the next election.

[fredonly]

You believe in the existence of something that is uncaused. Is this correct?

Yes, I think that is most likely.

You believe this uncaused something the existence of which is impossible for physics to infer... is the fundamental basis of physical reality. Is this correct?

Close, but not exactly. I do believe there is a fundamental basis of physical reality (molecules...atoms....protons/neutrons/electrons...quarks...eventually a bottom layer). The bottom layer is what I mean by "fundamental basis". Whatever it is, the initial state was also composed of it in some form.

MY CONCLUSION Your belief in the existence of an uncaused something (Xxx) that is the fundamental basis of physical reality amounts to believing in something unnatural (as per the definition you taught me)?

No. It is natural. The initial state evolved into the universe we are part of, per laws of nature: this is the causal connection (satisfying #3)

[TRANSPONDER]

Well caught. Jimminy Christmas; our pal JW is looking terrible, terrible in trying to force you to say that you believe in something Unnatural (aka supernatural) as the basis of a caused cosmos (as there can be no uncaused Cause...except God, of course ) This telegraphed attempt to force Goddunnit as the conclusion is a good laugh but terrible apologetics, terrible.

And you can bet that our pal JW probably thinks he is being terribly smart and philosophically sophisticated. It is a hoot.

[JehovahsWitness]

You believe in the existence of something that is uncaused. Is this correct?

Yes...

My understanding from the above is you do believe the existence of something that is uncaused. However, since you earlier stated ...

It is impossible for physics to infer either that something exists uncaused or with no beginning. ...

I am going to ask for clarification. My question is as follows :

Are you saying the laws of nature

(a) do infer either that something exists uncaused
or
(b) do not infer either that something exists uncaused

JW

The natural:

1. Everything in the world that we directly perceive
2. Everything that is inferred to exist through physics
3. Everything that is causally connected through laws of nature to 1&2
4. The complete mereological makeup of everything entailed by 1-3.

The unnatural: any hypothetical object not covered by 1-4.

[JehovahsWitness]

I also sought clarification regarding your more accurate definition of OBJECT but you have not yet responded ...

An "object" is simply something that exists

Interesting; is an object something that can be proven by physics to exist or anything that exists?

My understanding of what you have kindly taught me is that ANYTHING that exists, whatever its properties (whether it can be proven by physics or not ) can be classified as "an object" , is that correct?


(I am just seeking clarification on what you have posted)