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

[bluegreenearth]

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

Submitted for your awareness: Apparently, in Physics, a quantum field permeates all of spacetime and is inferred to have always existed (i.e., uncaused).

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Submitted for your awareness: Apparently, in Physics, a quantum field permeates all of spacetime and is inferred to have always existed (i.e., uncaused).

Was this posted to me in error? Did you intend this information for fredonly whose comment seems to contradict yours?

JW

[fredonly]

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

I explained much earlier why I believed there existed an initial, uncaused state, and it for a philosophical reasons.
1. I believe an infinite past is not possible, because it is impossible to traverse infinitely many steps (of duration >0). Therefore it must be finite.
2. Each state of the universe was caused by a temporally prior state. Since the past is finite, there must be an initial state.
3. Causes temporally precede their effect. Nothing can temporally precede an initial state, so it must be uncaused.

[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

I explained much earlier why I believed there existed an initial, uncaused state, and it for a philosophical reasons.
1. I believe an infinite past is not possible, because it is impossible to traverse infinitely many steps (of duration >0). Therefore it must be finite.
2. Each state of the universe was caused by a temporally prior state. Since the past is finite, there must be an initial state.
3. Causes temporally precede their effect. Nothing can temporally precede an initial state, so it must be uncaused.

Okay so for my understanding (I'm here to learn) ... is that (a) or (b)?

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

[fredonly]

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

Submitted for your awareness: Apparently, in Physics, a quantum field permeates all of spacetime and is inferred to have always existed (i.e., uncaused).

Was this posted to me in error? Did you intend this information for fredonly whose comment seems to contradict yours?

JW

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the best understanding available about what constitutes the fundamental basis of physical reality.

However, I prefer not to rely on this theory because:
1) it's possible there is something even more fundamental- some physicists have proposed speculative hypotheses of this.
2) Even if QFT is truly the most fundamental, no one knows how it behaved in the early universe (before t=10^-43 seconds).
3) Because of the various unknowns, I feel it's more appropriate to use a naturalist metaphysical perspective.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #142]

I inferred from your line of questioning that you weren't aware of an uncaused quantum field. If that inference was in error, then please indicate as such. Thanks.

[fredonly]

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

(a) is the better (but imperfect) answer of the two, because it fits into what I said:

2. Each state of the universe was caused by a temporally prior state....
a causes b implies there is a law that necessitates it.

IOW, I am not claiming to infer an uncaused initial state based specifically (and solely) on some law of nature. Rather, laws of nature account for causation - and my basis for believing an uncaused initial state is based on considering the causal chain; causation is due to laws of nature).

[JehovahsWitness]

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

(a) is the better (but imperfect) answer of the two

What would be the accurate option

(c) ....?

[JehovahsWitness]

Believing in the uncaused turtle , because of seeing no reason to believe there is anything but elephants and turtles is surely ignoring what is inferred the existence of elephants and turtles.

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.

[fredonly]

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

(a) is the better (but imperfect) answer of the two

What would be the accurate option

(c) ....?

(C) account for causation.