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]

My logic doesn't rule out something unnatural, however I see no rational reason to believe anything unnatural exists.

What do you mean by "unnatural"?





JW

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

[JehovahsWitness]

What is this thing you believe was "uncaused" ? ...

There is no way to know what it is.

... the makeup of the pre-inflation stuff is unknown by science?

... this has nothing to with known science.

In view of the above , is there anything to indicate one thing more likely than another ?



JW

... 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....

Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. - Wikipedia

[JehovahsWitness]

IN THE BEGINNING

I said uncaused. This means it wasn't caused. ...

But you believe it had a beginning , correct? If so , how did it begin without a cause? If it had no beginning does this mean it has always* existed? If not, why not?

* By "always" I mean there being no moment or circumstance or possibility in which it did not exist.

[fredonly]

IN THE BEGINNING

I said uncaused. This means it wasn't caused. ...

But you believe it had a beginning , correct? If so , how did it begin without a cause? If it had no beginning does this mean it has always* existed? If not, why not?

* By "always" I mean there being no moment or circumstance or possibility in which it did not exist.

Yes, my position is that the natural world has always existed. Therefore, it did not begin to exist in any reasonable sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

I also asked ....

My logic doesn't rule out something unnatural, however I see no rational reason to believe anything unnatural exists.

What do you mean by "unnatural"?


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

...my position is that the natural world has always existed. Therefore, it did not begin to exist in any reasonable sense.

You seem to be using the "stuff" and "The natural world" interchangeably, can you please explain what you mean by the latter?






JW

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) ...

[fredonly]

I also asked ....

My logic doesn't rule out something unnatural, however I see no rational reason to believe anything unnatural exists.

What do you mean by "unnatural"?


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]

The natural:

2. Everything that is inferred to exist through physics

...my position is that the natural world has always existed. Therefore, it did not begin to exist in any reasonable sense.

...everything that exists in the natural world ... 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 )...

So if physics "infers" the existence of an uncaused, non-material, non-carbon based , self-perpetuating, energy force, that had no beginning but from which our material universe emerged ...it could be considered "natural" and would fit your definition of "stuff" (or ...Xxx) ?




JW

... we seek the best explation for available evidence among the possibilities. ...

... the makeup of the pre-inflation stuff is unknown by science ...

[fredonly]

So if physics "infers" the existence of an uncaused, non-material, non-carbon based , self-perpetuating, energy force, that had no beginning but from which our material would emerged ...it could be considered "natural" and would fit your definition of "stuff" (or ...Xxx) ?

Nice try, but physics doesn't infer anything immaterial existing.

What's an "energy force"?

What you mean by "self-perpetuating"? Do you mean autonomous - dependent on nothing? If so, isn't the material reality self-perpetuating?

[JehovahsWitness]

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

So if physics "infers" the existence of an uncaused, "something", that had no beginning , the makeup of which is beyond science at this time, but from which our material universe emerged ...could it be considered "natural" and fit your definition of "stuff" (or ...Xxx) ?