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]

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

Then your question made no sense:
"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 could never infer something that is "beyond science" - it's self-contradictory. The answer I gave was to help you understand this.

The sort of thing I was referring to as"inferred" is a multiverse. Other universes would be causally disconnected, and therefore undetectable. But some hypotheses entail a multiverse. If such a hypothesis were to become accepted theory, it would entail the existence of alternate universes.

A historical example: general relativity predicted the existence of black holes long before they were detected. Before being detected, they were inferred to exist.

[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 could never infer something that is "beyond science" - it's self-contradictory.

DID I say beyond science or did I say beyond science at this time? "at this time" meaning beyond our present capacity to explain not scientifically inexplicable. Please read the question carefully, and respond.

I also asked ....

Does physics infer the existence of energy?

Thanks,

JW

The natural:

2. Everything that is inferred to exist through physics

...my position is that the natural world has always existed

[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 could never infer something that is "beyond science" - it's self-contradictory.

DID I say beyond science or did I say beyond science at this time? "at this time" meaning beyond our present capacity to explain not scientifically inexplicable. Please read the question carefully, and respond.

I am trying to be polite and answer questions that seem vague and loaded. Communication is two-way: you know what you mean, but it may not be so clear to the other person. Tell me what point you are trying to make, so I can understand the context, and then re-ask with new wording that refers to this point.

I also asked ....

The natural:

2. Everything that is inferred to exist through physics

...my position is that the natural world has always existed

Instead of posting quotes of quotes of quotes
of questions that weren't answered in the 2-3 responses you tend to give to each one of my responses, it will be a whole lot less tedious if you just re-ask, with more context - explaining what information you're seeking or what you're trying to demonstrate.

[JehovahsWitness]

Tell me what point you are trying to make...

I don't have to tell you "what point I'm trying to make" I'm seeking information. Any any points I make will be made in relation to the information you provide. If you do not understand the questions (if I use any words you cannot find in a dictionary), feel free to ask but if you understand the question it would be appreciated if you simply answer it.

I will remind you of the questions

1. Does physics infer the existence of energy?

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

The question is not "loaded" since its suppostional but if the answer is no because of any of the elements therein, just explain what that is and why and I will remove or adjust it accordingly.


JW

If you don't know the meaning of "the past", get a dictionary.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is more than loased, it is faithbased - suppositional. And fiddled ....but let's stop dancing about it and get to it. the implication, based on science and human intuition is that energy was the start of the cosmos Possibly. And the Faithbased idea bec hind the line of questioning is 'Who made everything, then/" We know this with both eyes covered, and it is futile because it does not lead to a god (never mind which one, but only 'don't really know; can only make suggestions' at this time.

[fredonly]

^^^^

[JehovahsWitness]

What do you mean by physics "inferring" something to exist?

The same thing you meant in the post below ...

The natural:

2. Everything that is inferred to exist through physics

What do you mean by "energy

If you don't know the meaning of "the past", get a dictionary.

Here is a link for a free online dictionary : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ feel free to look up the word "energy"

define "universe".

NOTE : When I refer to the universe for the sake of this discussion I am refering to the following ....

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.

[JehovahsWitness]

The natural:

2. Everything that is inferred to exist through physics

Do the speculative hypotheses of physicists count as inferences by physics, or do you limit it to inferences made by established theories in physics?

You tell me, its your definition(see above)

You asked, "If physics were to infer "something" beyond science at this moment....". I don't understand what you mean.

I mean ... what you meant when you said the following...

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

[JehovahsWitness]

How could phyics possibly infer something is uncaused? It seems contrary to the practice of science- they would always seek a cause, even if it were actually uncaused.

How could physics infer something has no beginning? It seems to me they would always seek to understand how something began, even if it actually had no beginning.

Did I say it could ....or did I say ---> IF < --- it could? Do you know the difference between a claim and a speculative question?

[TRANSPONDER]

How could phyics possibly infer something is uncaused? It seems contrary to the practice of science- they would always seek a cause, even if it were actually uncaused.

How could physics infer something has no beginning? It seems to me they would always seek to understand how something began, even if it actually had no beginning.

Did I say it could ....or did I say ---> IF < --- it could? Do you know the difference between a claim and a speculative question?

I think you miss the point - physics implies only that energy exist because there are rules (physics) about how it acts. Claim or an IF, we appear to be in the same old apologetic re-packaged to make it look like a new one - how could the universe (or cosmic stuff) come from nothing? Isn't that it?

Answer, even if we have no idea or even hypotheses, it does not do a single darn thing to validate the god - claim, never mind a particular one.

It is diverting, I suppose to have theoretical discussions about Cosmic Origins from a practical or even logical standpoint, but they are essentially a waste of time as they do not advance the theist god - claim one scrap, never m,ind the claims of Christianity.

We only get it repeatedly - just as we keep getting evolution (and geological deep tome) discussions because the Bible apologists think it matters. It actually does not.