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

[JehovahsWitness]

When I said "singularity is not something that existed" I meant as a seperate entity. Like darkness is not a thing its the absence of light, is as I said above [it] is a point in a process. Hope that clear things up.

JW

Yes...

Good. So To sum up ...

Cosmologists generally agree that the Universe began 13.8 billion years ago in the Big Bang. This is based on decades of observations showing that all the galaxies in the Universe are flying apart: in other words, the Universe is expanding. If you run the tape backwards, it looks like everything in the Universe was originally clumped together. The implication is that, at the very beginning, everything was compressed into an infinitely tiny dot or "singularity" when then expanded astonishingly fast in the Big Bang.

The origin of time is tied up with the conditions in the earliest Universe. It's tempting to ask what happened before this, but most physicists will say this is meaningless. "Time only exists as the Universe exists," says astrophysicist Emma Osborne at the University of York in the UK. "The moment the Universe came into existence is when time started." - source bbc website

So, since "nothing" is a logical impossibility, and space and time is finite, "something".. , has exist outside of space and time as we know it. We call that God, you use the more technical and scientifically accurate term .... "stuff".

... There was "something". [...] I call this something, "stuff". ... this stuff preceded a state that we can discern ...

[TRANSPONDER]

That is just playing with words...or concepts. You can say that 'nothing' does not exist as it occupies space and time, even if arguable space and time do not exist in Nothing. But the point is that an absence of Things, or a Thing (cosmic stuff) would be n Nothing in the sense that anything requiring an act of creation does not (yet) exist.

The question then is, how did and how can the stuff of the universe begin to exist?

Nobody really knows of course, but let's not play tricks with semantics.

[fredonly]

When I said "singularity is not something that existed" I meant as a seperate entity. Like darkness is not a thing its the absence of light, is as I said above [it] is a point in a process. Hope that clear things up.

JW

Yes, it makes it clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

The so-called "big bang singularity" refers to the caculation of an equation of general relativity for calculating the size and density of the universe at points in time. As time approaches 0, the calculated size approaches 0 and the density approaches infinity. The equation doesn't apply to t=0, because it is mathematically invalid to divide by 0, so it's a mathematical singularity. That never implied "a singilarity existed", it meant general relativity could not make a prediction.

Inflationary theory solved this dilemma (see this article).

Other theories (e.g. String Theory; loop quantum gravity) also account for the state of the universe without a mathematical singularity.

Good. So To sum up ...

Cosmologists generally agree that the Universe began 13.8 billion years ago in the Big Bang. This is based on decades of observations showing that all the galaxies in the Universe are flying apart: in other words, the Universe is expanding. If you run the tape backwards, it looks like everything in the Universe was originally clumped together. The implication is that, at the very beginning, everything was compressed into an infinitely tiny dot or "singularity" when then expanded astonishingly fast in the Big Bang.

It's certainly not "good" that you don't know what you're talking about!

When cosmologists say the universe "began 13.8 billion years ago in the big bang", they are NOT referring to the beginning of material reality. They use the term "universe" to refer to the system of stars, galaxies, etc around us - the origin of this system can be traced back to the big bang. But as I discussed, the reason they can't estimate what preceded the "universe" (so defined) is because general relativity becomes inapplicable during a period known as "the Planck era" (link):

"The reason our descriptions of time and space break down near the Planck era is that the gravitational field at this time was so distorted and turbulent with its own quantum fluctuations, it is impossible to define a clock to measure time or a ruler to measure length. Only a fully quantum mechanical description of gravity which we dont yet have will let us probe deeper into this corner of cosmic history. "

The origin of time is tied up with the conditions in the earliest Universe. It's tempting to ask what happened before this, but most physicists will say this is meaningless.

Both points are incorrect: We don't have the physics to examine the Planck era, so we don't have the information to determine if this entailed an "origin of time", and it's certainly not "meaningless" to work toward developing the physics to understand it.

"Time only exists as the Universe exists," says astrophysicist Emma Osborne at the University of York in the UK. "The moment the Universe came into existence is when time started." - source bbc website

Lacks both a link and context, however I found the article here.
Obviously, you quoted a quote - an ambiguous one-liner, and are applying confirmation bias. The article later notes: "Many physicists suspect that the "arrow of time" is not a fundamental feature of the Universe, but instead something that emerges from the behaviour of the stuff contained in it." This implies that time emerges from what existed.

So, since "nothing" is a logical impossibility, and space and time is finite, "something".. , has exist outside of space and time as we know it.

Non-sequitur. Even if space and time are both finite, it does not entail anything outside of space and time.

... There was "something". [...] I call this something, "stuff". ... this stuff preceded a state that we can discern ...

I was referring to the Planck era, when the stuff that became the universe is unanalyzable with current physics.

[JehovahsWitness]

...the beginning of material reality. ... because general relativity becomes inapplicable

And this "material" reality (if it existed) was (a) infinite (b) finite. If finite, it was preceded by something. We call that something God (you call it"stuff") . If infinite...we call that ...God.

The rest is semantics,


JW

[fredonly]

...the beginning of material reality. ... because general relativity becomes inapplicable

And this "material" reality (if it existed) was (a) infinite (b) finite. If finite, it was preceded by something. We call that something God (you call it"stuff") . If infinite...we call that ...God.

You're repeating the same nonsense.

Material reality= everything that exists in the natural world. This could include a multiverse of infinitely many universes, if this exists. Refering to "material reality" leaves open the possibility of the immaterial (existing independently of the natural world - and which could include one or more gods). I've seen no compelling reason to think anything immaterial exists, but I'm open to evidence and argument it exists.

If the past is finite, it's logically impossible for something to have preceded it! I never said otherwise. The "stuff" I referred to was whatever existed during, and possibly prior to, the Planck era. This has nothing to do with whether or not the past is finite. I think the past is finite for philosophical reasons, and this entails an uncaused initial state. The initial state may have been during the Planck era, but we don't know that: it's possible there have been repeated cycles of big bang/big crunches.

If the past is infinite, it would mean beginningless - no place to insert gods into the causal chain.

[Difflugia]

And this "material" reality (if it existed) was (a) infinite (b) finite. If finite, it was preceded by something. We call that something God (you call it"stuff") . If infinite...we call that ...God.

Does "infinite" mean that it's necessarily sentient and hates bacon? Considering the amount of effort you put into distinguishing the god of Genesis 1:1 from the god of John 1:1, I'd think you'd be a bit less cavalier about the definition of this third god.

[JehovahsWitness]

Material reality= everything that exists in the natural world.

In that , the concensus us that the "natural world" goes back to a single point of singularity (the so called "Planck era" is just another way of refering to this point) beyond which neither time nor space existed, and for which the laws we know of break down*. Since nothing is a logical impossibility, there must be "something" that exists beyond space and time (the natural world)

NOTE since at this point (of "era") all bets are off and no physical laws apply there is no basis to affirm that immaterial forces could not be a factor.

On that we can surely agree.

If on the other hand, if you are claiming that there is an infinite number or cycle of multi universes then again you are claiming "something" that is infinite. Something we ultimately do not understand and cannot quantify,

In that you and the theist stand on common ground.

If the past is finite, it's logically impossible for something to have preceded it!

Yes, that however does not mean nothing else can exist only that the "something else" is not bound by time , space or material matter. Which is why I kept explaining to you, that to say that which came "before" space and time is a oxymoron: there is no "before" only outside/ beyond. There has to be because absolute nothingness is a logical impossibility.



JW

[fredonly]

Material reality= everything that exists in the natural world.

In that , the concensus us that the "natural world" goes back to a single point of singularity, beyond which neither time nor space existed

Wrong. I've already explained it to you. Watch this short video by Sean Carroll:
It backs up everything I said.

Don Lincoln goes into more detail in this video:


At 7:40, Lincoln says: "It's not a sin to not know something. It's only a sin to think you do, when you clearly don't."

So by his reckoning, you're a sinner!

[JehovahsWitness]

Watch this short video ...

I'm here to debate not watch videos. May I suggest you try and articulate the main point in a post with the written word.

[fredonly]

Watch this short video ...

I'm here to debate not watch videos. May I suggest you try and articulate the main point in a post with the written word.

The videos confirm everything I said, and contradict what you said. In the 2nd one, the physicist says (at 10:30), "...this means statements about time not existing at t=0 should be considered suspicious". From there, he proceeds to describe some educated guesses.