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]

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

Does physics infer the existence of energy?

[fredonly]

So if physics "infers" the existence of an uncaused, something, that had no beginningand the makkeup of which is beyond science at thus time, but from which our material universe emerged...

Physics does not infer a finite past. It can infer nothing prior to 10^-43 seconds (measured from the hypothetical t=0, the mathematical singularity we discussed earlier). All known physics breaks down before that, so no valid inferences can be made.

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

Does physics infer the existence of energy?

Energy isn't an object. Energy is a property of a physical system, just like mass.

[JehovahsWitness]

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) ?

Physics does not infer a finite past.

I didnt mention the past (finite or otherwise). Can you, please anwser the question.







JW

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

[JehovahsWitness]

Does physics infer the existence of energy?

Energy isn't an object....

I didn't say it was, I offered no definition whatsoever, I simply asked does physics infer the existence of energy. Can you please answer the question.

[fredonly]

Does physics infer the existence of energy?

Energy isn't an object....

I didn't say it was, I offered no definition whatsoever, I simply asked does physics infer the existence of energy. Can you please answer the question.

You posed the question in response to my assertion that science does not infer the existence of anything immaterial, so I was going to thr heart of the matter. Energy, mass, electric charge, spin, color charge, etc exist...as properties of objects. No objects exist without properties, and no properties exist unattached to objects. Objects (with their properties) comprise the world.

[fredonly]

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) ?

Physics does not infer a finite past.

I didnt mention the past (finite or otherwise). Can you, please anwser the question.

JW

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

Physics is not the source of my stated belief about the natural world being finite to the past and "always" existing (per our agreed definition). I explained this. This is why I pointed out: "Physics does not infer a finite past. It can infer nothing prior to 10^-43 seconds". So physics provides no guidance for anything preceding that point in time.

[TRANSPONDER]

So if physics "infers" the existence of an uncaused, something, that had no beginningand the makkeup of which is beyond science at thus time, but from which our material universe emerged...

Physics does not infer a finite past. It can infer nothing prior to 10^-43 seconds (measured from the hypothetical t=0, the mathematical singularity we discussed earlier). All known physics breaks down before that, so no valid inferences can be made.

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

Does physics infer the existence of energy?

Energy isn't an object. Energy is a property of a physical system, just like mass.

The only reason I'm putting my oar in apart from saying nice job Fred, is to comment on what our pal JW is trying to do and has to do, because Friends one and alll , "Who made everything, then?" and its' big bruvver, Kalam, can fool people into thinking they are the underpinnings of the god - claim. Which they are, but not the God - claim, which I won't bore you - wall with repetition with here.

But what Jw is trying to do, and has to do is (and we may get a new fallacy out of this) 'anything but goddunnit is Impossible'. This is the same with abiogenesis, and i know it is so because it has popped out unintentionally like a bad accident with a trouser - zip. 'It is Impossible for life to have come from non - life' just as the argument here is that 'Nothing can come from nothing'. Without doing all the apologetics and rebuttals over again (Fred Only can deal with that, not me) this is why Theism sees this as an atheist stumper - which is almost is. intuitively, we suppose there must have been a start to everything, whether it is a Big Whomp and a myriad of galaxies appearing (and that is looking less like a joke than it might, thanks o tthe JWT) or the more comprehensible model of a cosmic bubble full of galaxies expanding from the point of the BB detonation, which was claimed by science to be packed into something the size of an apple, and blame the scientists, not me.

Which of course raised the REAL argument, where did the stuff to make the BB even come from? Which meant that argument about the Big bang was pointless as it was a debate about the origins of the basic cosmic stuff, not the thing that started Our universe, as there may be others, in the same dimension, too. The cosmic model of an expanding plum pudding full of Raisins, expanding might well be a catering factory full of them, and not all made at the same time, which would answer the atheist - stumper about 'when did it start?' "there was no time before" looking as evasive as 'Maybe they went to galilee to see Jesus but Luke didn't bother to mention it'. And of course, an eventual death and stasis, an absorbtion back into the cosmic stuff that should have the taoists dancing a foursome reel and chanting 'Taoism was right!' and a new BB even being assembled out of the cosmic minestrone. Thus hosing the Creationists bleats about entropy into the scuppers.

No, the only argument that even matters a tuppenny piece is 'how did the cosmic stuff come from Nothing? Or how could it be there and never created. And never mind the evasive and dismissive 'God is eternal and uncreated' get -out, Because logically a gradual emergence of pre -atomic particles which appear to have energy but no mass multiplies less logical entities than claiming a god that is incorporeal but omnicognisant and able to create.

Believe me, friends, I was looking at that in my teens and saw the 'God of Einstein' (or even the Cosmic Mind). as a clear possibility, even though this holes and sinks the Question that God - apologists try to evade "Which God?"

For which 'the Abrahamic god" might be a fair answer, but we rarely if ever get further than 'it's all one god'. Rather theism drags us onto rhetorical discussions that are designed...and this is the whole point.... to force on us the conclusion that only a deliberate act of Will could have started off the whole shebang, whatever that shebang might be. To which I propose the counter (ignored along with every other hypothesis, initiative or indeed new fallacy (e.g the misuse of analogy) I have devised and proposed) 'Origin of the cosmic stuff from Noting is a problem; the emergence of an entity/being from nothing and intelligent/creative, too, is two problems."

And the theist argument has always been to make 'God' the only Possible proposal and eternal spiritual existence of this God the only way out of the logical impasse.

It isn't. It is (as usual) nothing more than denial, dismissal of anything other than a far less logically probable faithclaim, backed up with a quote from John, as though that proved anything at all.

Here endeth the lesson, a dollar in the tin please, and I'll be on my way and leavbe you two to Dook it out.

[JehovahsWitness]

...Physics is not the source of my stated belief about the natural world being finite to the past and "always" existing (per our agreed definition).

I didn't ask you anything about the past, since physics does not infer a finite past, and I am seeking clarification regarding things that ARE inferred to exist through physics. A past (finite ) is not one of them so I didnt ask about that
.

Everything that is inferred to exist through physics

You believe in "an uncaused, "something", that had no beginning ... I asked a suppostional question --> **IF** <--- here it is again (Please just take it on face value and anwser the question as best you can ...)

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) ?

[JehovahsWitness]

... I was going to thr heart of the matter.

Don't try and anticipated the heart of the matter, just answer the question if you would be so kind. It's a simple enough question.. .

Does physics infer the existence of energy?

[TRANSPONDER]

... I was going to thr heart of the matter.

Don't try and anticipated the heart of the matter, just answer the question if you would be so kind. It's a simple enough question.. .

Does physics infer the existence of energy?

I gotta step in here, with this brutal and telegraphed attempt to force a 'Cosmic Intelligence' conclusion.
Physics does not Infer anything. Inferences are done by reasoning and physics is not (on any evidence) reasoning.

However i get the point; physics (physical laws) applies to matter/energy so the existence of physical laws implies the existence of the matter energy those laws apply to Duhhh, So it comes down to who made the matter energy? The physical laws didn't, no more than moral codes made humans; the humans had to be there before the ethics were.

So physics is just what matter/energy does, and what works, works and what does not goes extinct, which is rather what human morals and ethics do, when one thinks about it.

So, JW old pal, how about being honest about what the Question really is "Who made everything, then?" which is surely what laws of physics is apparently pointing at 'energy must exist, so who made it, eh?' Like Kalam, childishly simplistic when one unpacks it.

And I don't mind if you ignore or even blot my posts ; Others can see that your arguments are being called out.