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]

Okay so If I understand correctly, believing in something that can exist in a uncaused state does not fall under your classification of unnatural . My question for you then is , why would believing in an uncaused God be thus considered ?

[fredonly]

Okay so If I understand correctly, believing in something that can exist in a uncaused state does not fall under your classification of unnatural . My question for you then is , why would believing in an uncaused God be thus considered ?

I don't understand your question. Are you asking why I don't consider God as the uncaused first cause?

[JehovahsWitness]

.. Are you asking why I don't consider God as the uncaused first cause?

No, what I'm asking is how does your uncaused something differ from an uncaused God?

The little fish in the bowl do not believe the characteristics they can observe can be a reflection of something outside of their fishbowl

[fredonly]

.. Are you asking why I don't consider God as the uncaused first cause?

No, what I'm asking is how does your uncaused something differ from an uncaused God?

A God is a being that has an uncaused complex organization (knowledge entails organization), including the knowledge of how to create a universe, and the power to execute the plan.

A natural first cause is just some uncaused unorganized initial state of affairs that evolves without direction. Organization develops gradually.

[JehovahsWitness]

A God is a being that has an uncaused complex...knowledge of how to create a universe, and the power to execute the plan.

So the only difference is ...knowledge and forsight?

My understanding is we both believe in an uncreated object (more accurate definition of "object" being -> s that which exists) to which arguably physics and certainly philosophy point.

[fredonly]

A God is a being that has an uncaused complex organization (knowledge entails organization), including the knowledge of how to create a universe, and the power to execute the plan.

How on earth do you know that?

I used a pretty minimalist definition of "God" as creator of the universe. Give me the definition you have in mind when you asked the question.

[JehovahsWitness]

A God is a being that has an uncaused complex organization (knowledge entails organization), including the knowledge of how to create a universe, and the power to execute the plan.

How on earth do you know that?

I used a pretty minimalist definition of "God" as creator of the universe. Give me the definition you have in mind when you asked the question.

This if we assume all gods create and that's quite a jump in logic. I did not ask about a "creator" nor but of a god and the above is NOT an accurate description if what I'm talkng about.

[fredonly]

A God is a being that has an uncaused complex organization (knowledge entails organization), including the knowledge of how to create a universe, and the power to execute the plan.

How on earth do you know that?

I used a pretty minimalist definition of "God" as creator of the universe. Give me the definition you have in mind when you asked the question.

This if we assume all gods create and that's quite a jump in logic. I did not ask about a "creator" nor but of a god and the above is NOT an accurate description if what I'm talkng about.

We were discussing the uncaused first cause that accounts for the big bang. Regardless, please give me your definition of God.

[JehovahsWitness]

...please give me your definition of God.

A natural uncaused first cause from which organization developped.

[bluegreenearth]

...please give me your definition of God.

A natural uncaused object from which organization developped.

Given the above definition, a universal quantum field is a god.