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]

Please explain in what sense you use the word "past", I suspect you mean as far back as it is possible to go with known physics, but please correct me if I misunderstand. What are philosophical reasons you alluded to that lead you to pronounced the "past" finite ?

Indeed, you are wrong. My philosophical reason for believing the past is finite: an infinite past would entail a completed infinity: completing an infinite number of steps of finite duration is impossible. In no way does this identify a specific point, or era, of origination.

Please explain what you mean by "an uncaused initial state"

Each state of the universe was caused by its previous state, so there's a temporally sequenced series of causes. Because I believe the past is finite, there has to be an uncaused initial state. To be clear: this does not preclude an initial state consisting of a god, although that seems far-fetched for anyone who doesn't just assume such a being exists because of faith commitments.

Whatis this thing you believe was "uncaused" and upon what evidence do you claim anything can be uncaused?

As we've discussed, it is not currently possible to determine the state of reality prior to the inflationary period which preceded the hot big bang. An initial state could have been around that time, but it could have been long before that.

[JehovahsWitness]

..My philosophical reason for believing the past is finite: an infinite past would entail a completed infinity: completing an infinite number of steps of finite duration is impossible.

I dont understand what you have written, could you rephrase in simpler terms?

(also you did not define what you mean by "past")

[JehovahsWitness]

Please explain what you mean by "an uncaused initial state"

I take that to mean something ie " something that existed" , and this thing that existed was in a particular state (condition). If that is not what you meant, please explain.

Whatis this thing you believe was "uncaused" and upon what evidence do you claim anything can be uncaused?

[TRANSPONDER]

You are doing it all wrong. The bottom line is that we don't know. Nobody does. Cosmic origins is a puzzle. Even the Big bang is now under question and science has to admit that it has to start asking questions again. This is why it is better and more logical than faithclaims; it is willing to admit that it maybe doesn't know even what they thought they knew.

Cue 'it doesn't know anything' not quite. We know the earth is not flat (denialists aside) that it is not a few thousand years old (denialists aside) that life evolved and did not appear all in one go (denialism aside) and that - like the heliocentric system - is NOT going to be overturned, even if the Big bang and age of the universe totally may be.

Point is, that not knowing how the universe (and cosmic stuff) was originated and any and all questions (honest or rhetorical trickery)about what time and space actually is, remain questions, unexplaineds and unknowns. They do Not NOT... learn this well JW our friend - make scientific and human knowledge (or evilooshiun as they call it in Maga Tennessee) leave a cosmic intelligent designer as the default hypothesis, never mind which god.

Anticipating and saying what has been said before, many times. Theist - think is inherently irrational and thus Religious apologetics always fail, because they are based on a god - claim that is invalid to begin with. Theist apologetics simply do not work without God as the default hypothesis, and trust me, JW old pal, I have seen this EVERY time - it never is, but Theist apologists will always reject the materialist default, the atheist default (not knowing - agnosticism - logically mandates non - belief until we do know) as seen in reversal of burden of proof, and logical default - 'don't know' does not = goddunnit.

Your post above was clever or at least cunning, but it is logically flawed all the way through and can never be valid; not even if you deny and dismiss all human knowledge and logic as mere human opinion.

Nothing, NOTHING, logically gets you to a Cosmic Intelligence, never mind which one.

[fredonly]

Please explain what you mean by "an uncaused initial state"

Whatis this thing you believe was "uncaused" and upon what evidence do you claim anything can be uncaused?

Whatever is the fundamental basis of physical reality would exist uncaused. I believe something is uncaused based on conceptual analysis: the alternative is a vicious, infinite regress of causes.

Similarly, I believe there is a fundamental basis of physical reality, because the alternative is a vicious, infinite series of composition (smaller and smaller parts).

[JehovahsWitness]

THE GREAT UNCAUSED

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

What is this thing you believe was "uncaused" ? Upon what evidence do you claim anything CAN be uncaused? (ie have you seen compelling reason to think anything uncaused can exist?)

I believe something is uncaused based on conceptual analysis: the alternative is a vicious, infinite regress of causes.

Do you believe in this uncaused "thing" only because the alternative is inacceptable to you or because you have evidence that a {quote}infinite regress of causes is impossible ?

... it's possible there have been repeated cycles of big bang/big crunches.

Do you believe this "uncaused" something

(a) caused itself
(b) did not cause itself and was "caused" (arose) naturally from preexisting (uncaused?) conditions
(c) OTHER ...please explain.

[JehovahsWitness]

If the past is finite, it's logically impossible for something to have preceded it! ... If the past is infinite, it would mean beginningless

Also, I asked ...

Please explain in what sense you use the word "past", I suspect you mean as far back as it is possible to go with known physics, but please correct me if I misunderstand. What are philosophical reasons you alluded to that lead you to pronounced the "past" finite ?

[bluegreenearth]

THE GREAT UNCAUSED

Whatever is the fundamental basis of physical reality would exist uncaused. I believe something is uncaused based on conceptual analysis: the alternative is a vicious, infinite regress of causes.

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?)

Apparently, neither science nor mathematics has yet to disprove the falsifiable claim that a quantum field exists without a cause.

[JehovahsWitness]

... pointing to a past era that isn't explainable by known physics isn't evidence of anything. It's not evidence of gods nor evidence of naturalism. It's consistent with both....

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).

[fredonly]

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.

Do you believe in this uncaused "thing" only because the alternative is inacceptable to you or because you have evidence that an {quote}infinite regress of causes is impossible ?

There are only two possibilities: an infinite chain of causes or an initial state of affairs. I consider an infinite chain plausible (a live possibility), but I'm inclined to believe it's not infinite for the reason I cited. Let me know if you see something wrong with the reasoning.

Do you believe this "uncaused" something

(a) caused itself

Certainly not. That seems impossible, because causes temporally precede effects. "Causing itself" would imply an object temporally preceded itself, which is logically impossible.

(b) did not cause itself and "caused" arose naturally from preexisting (uncaused?) conditions

This option implies the uncaused thing was caused. Self-cotradictory.

(c) OTHER ...please explain.[/indent]

I said uncaused. This means it wasn't caused. You believe God was uncaused, so you should be able to grasp the concept.

In short I'm trying to understand what scientifically verifiable ...

Have you forgotten that the makeup of the pre-inflation stuff is unknown by science (although there are some educated guesses)? Are you perhaps thinking that if there's a gap in scientific knowledge that this means it must be unnatural?

Also, I asked ...

Please explain in what sense you use the word "past", I suspect you mean as far back as it is possible to go with known physics, but please correct me if I misunderstand. What are philosophical reasons you alluded to that lead you to pronounced the "past" finite ?

I already explained why I think the past is finite, and it was a philosophical basis, so of course this has nothing to with known science. If you don't know the meaning of "the past", get a dictionary.