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]

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

So you refer to an "era" beyond space (which is unanalyzable) time (which is inseparable from space) and matter (which is unanalyzable) ...you recognise that it is impossible with current physics to analyse/quantity/measure and thus ultimatrly prove the "stuff" you believe the universe(s) came from , yet you hold it to be a reasonable theory in relation to the current physical realities.

Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?

So what would you say if I were to ask you to produce evidence to support the existence if this stuff that you believe became the universe .

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Okay then. We call this "immaterial" independent existence God.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Unless God is that infinite past.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think the past is finite

Meaning...? I take that to mean there was a point when time "began" but perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying.

... this entails an uncaused initial state. ...

What do you mean an "uncaused initial state"...an "uncaused initial state" of WHAT ?What was in a state...? Is this your now infamous unquantifiable "stuff" ?

If so, its just Semantics...

"The reason that there is Something rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable." - Frank Wilcze.

If Mr Wilcze can rebrand "something" as "unstable nothing" yet people swallow that enormouse oxymoron, then I see no problem with calling your uncaused "stuff" that resulted in one (or multiple ) universes ...God.

[fredonly]

Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?

No.

[otseng]

That's total B.S..

Moderator Comment

Please avoid any profanity, even if you consider it mild.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[gadfly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #23]

I will reply later to each of your statements.

For now, I wish only one answer from you.


In your assessment of the earliest believers of Jesus' resurrection, how insane were the earliest believers and proclaimers of the risen Jesus? No one had ever made this claim; no one has made it since.

So, were they insane?

[JehovahsWitness]

No.

I think you are mistaken, regarding what you have written ( although it might not reflect what you intended to communicate). Regardless, my question for you is. ..since you believe in "stuff" from which the universe came, you speculate this uncaused "stuff" which is "unanalyzable with current physics" yet evidently hold it to be a reasonable theory in relation to the current physical realities ....

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

... how does your "stuff" differ in essence from what I call .... God?

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #68]
The pre-bang stuff was behaving per laws of nature (the actual way nature works), but it's unanalyzable under known physics. Physics is the science that tries to understand the laws of nature. The pre-big bang conditions aren't like anything in the world today, so it's difficult or impossible to analyze. Watch the second video for more context.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #68]
The pre-bang stuff was behaving per laws of nature (the actual way nature works), but it's unanalyzable under known physics. Physics is the science that tries to understand the laws of nature. The pre-big bang conditions aren't like anything in the world today, so it's difficult or impossible to analyze. Watch the second video for more context.

That is it. Nobody knows how the cosmos started.
The speculations about space and time are merely hypotheses.
Like origins of Life and consciousness and the old morality argument, which also they keep on trying to pull, Natural origins (without intelligent creator) are not only just as feasible, and more probable logically, as a natural mechanism doesn't have to explain where a god came from, but the mechanisms are at least hypothetically explanations where in Theism an intelligent Creator just does it.

I think the less said about the dirty trick (I see no need to mince words here and I have had decades of experience with Theist apologists pulling such semantic swindles), of calling whatever the Realities, known and unknown "God", the better. As of course, Physicists waggishly call the workings physical universe 'God' but they may at most suggest the cosmos intelligent or controlled in some way, but (like Einstein) would suppose most would regard their views as 'atheist'.

There is certainly no validation for the 'Leap of faith; from some sorta god (Intelligent Creator) to a god of any particular religion. But Religious apologists seem to think that wangling the 'God' - label into half credibility is half the battle for religion. And of course it might have the desired effect of eliminating atheism at a stroke, and without having to stone, burn or hang any of them.