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

[Clownboat]

...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.

Being ignostic is justified it seems.
Ignosticism is the belief that the question of God's existence is meaningless because the word "God" is not clearly defined. Ignostics believe that people should not take a position on God's existence until a clear definition of God is available.

A God:
- A natural uncaused object that caused organization.
- A universal quantum field.
- A persons car or money.
- A favorite sports team.
- Jesus Christ as passed on to us via humans.
- Not Jesus Christ, but his father as passed on to us via humans.
- All other competing god concepts passed on to us via humans.

For these reasons, using gods as explanations for things is not helpful because a clear definition is unavailable.

To illustrate:
"X thing happened because God was behind it."
Now tell me what was behind 'X' happening.

To pretend that one 'god concept' (traditional god ideas invented by humans - this is me attempting to provide some defined meaning of what I am meaning by using 'god' here) is valid while denying all others is just bad reasoning IMO. Especially since it is known that most theist humans believe in a god concept (same definition as above) due to where they were born, further making gods as explanations less acceptable.

To address the OP specifically, gods are not valid explanations for the problem of evil as gods are not defined.
To illustrate:
A natural uncaused object that caused organization does not address the problem of evil.
A universal quantum field does not address the problem of evil.
- ....

[bluegreenearth]

To address the OP specifically, gods are not valid explanations for the problem of evil as gods are not defined.
To illustrate:
A natural uncaused object that caused organization does not address the problem of evil.
A universal quantum field does not address the problem of evil.
- ....

It is my understanding that there is no problem of evil to be addressed if the necessary being is a natural uncaused object like a universal quantum field.

[fredonly]

...please give me your definition of God.

A natural uncaused first cause from which organization developped.

This seems a pointless use of the term "God". Why apply the term to something that lacks even the ability to act intentionally?

[JehovahsWitness]

...please give me your definition of God.

A natural uncaused first cause from which organization developped.

This seems a pointless use of the term "God".

Don't you call your own "stuff" ? At least at least my term uses less letters of the alphabet. So my question is : how does your uncaused something differ from an uncaused God?

Could you answer again, this time based on my more accurate defintion of god.

NOTE: Since we at the present time do not have any scientifically verifiable information about the "stuff" we both believe in (you call it stuff, I call it "God " - we could call it Xxx if the letter G triggers you) claims about "intentions" and "ability" are entirely premature. I will therefore ignore your follow up question : We are just establishing the nature of our shared belief in an "uncaused cause"; in short " how does my "uncaused cause" differ from your "uncaused cause" ?


JW

We were discussing the uncaused first cause that accounts for the big bang.

[the laws of nature] ... account for causation.

(molecules...atoms....protons/neutrons/electrons...quarks...eventually a bottom layer). The bottom layer is what I mean by "fundamental basis". Whatever it is, the initial state was also composed of it in some form

[JehovahsWitness]

We were discussing the uncaused first cause that accounts for the big bang

SPOT THE FIRST CAUSE

[fredonly]

...please give me your definition of God.

A natural uncaused first cause from which organization developped.

This seems a pointless use of the term "God".

Don't you call your own "stuff" ? At least at least my term uses less letters of the alphabet. So my question is : how does your uncaused something differ from an uncaused God?

Could you answer again, this time based on my more accurate defintion of god.

NOTE: Since we at the present time do not have any scientifically verifiable information about the "stuff" we both believe in (you call it stuff, I call it "God " - we could call it Xxx if the letter G triggers you) claims about "intentions" and "ability" are entirely premature. I will therefore ignore your follow up question : We are just establishing the nature of our shared belief in an "uncaused cause"; in short " how does my "uncaused cause" differ from your "uncaused cause" ?


JW

We were discussing the uncaused first cause that accounts for the big bang.

[the laws of nature] ... account for causation.

(molecules...atoms....protons/neutrons/electrons...quarks...eventually a bottom layer). The bottom layer is what I mean by "fundamental basis". Whatever it is, the initial state was also composed of it in some form

I called the uncaused initial state of affairs, "stuff" because we don't have any information about it, other than the fact that it morphed (in whole or in part) over time into the universe. I reject applying the label, "God" to this unknown stuff because it bears no resemblence to any other use of the term, and it will mislead. You are free to use words any way you like, but if you want to communicate with someone else, you will need to provide your definition. If we have a discussion in the future, I will try to remember that when you use the term "God", you just mean mindless, material stuff that evolves per laws of nature.

I continue to wonder what your point is, but you previously indicated an unwillingness to share it.

[TRANSPONDER]

We were discussing the uncaused first cause that accounts for the big bang

SPOT THE CAUSE

We go around in circles. There may be a Cause to the Cosmic stuff. There may not be. There are actually hypotheses and even evidence for Something from nothing. Tou do not get to insist that , even if there has to be a cause, the cause has to be an intelligent one (a god) never mind a particular one. Theism (let alone religion) has no real case here, and yet they act like it is the final proof.

We know why.

[JehovahsWitness]

I reject applying the label, "God" to this unknown stuff because it bears no resemblence to any other use of the term, and it will mislead.

Nobody's asking you to accept the term, I already said you don't have to if you find it triggering (it is irrelevant what we call it, what us relevant is what we are talking about)

You are free to use words any way you like, but if you want to communicate with someone else, you will need to provide your definition.

Which has been done ...

...please give me your definition of God.

A natural uncaused first cause from which organization developped.

I continue to wonder what your point is, but you previously indicated an unwillingness to share it.

My point at the moment is to get an answer to my question which you seem particularly reluctant to address. Here it is for the 3rd time

Based on the more accurate definition of "god" I provided could you answer again :

How does your uncaused "something" differ from an uncaused God?

The first answer was based on some misconceptions about what we were actually discussing.





JW

I called the uncaused initial state of affairs, "stuff" because we don't have any information about it, other than the fact that it morphed (in whole or in part) over time into the universe.

It is natural. The initial state evolved into the universe we are part of, per laws of nature...

[fredonly]

I reject applying the label, "God" to this unknown stuff because it bears no resemblence to any other use of the term, and it will mislead.

Nobody's asking you to accept the term, I already said you don't have to if you find it triggering (it is irrelevant what we call it, what us relevant is what we are talking about)

Based on the more accurate definition of "god" I provided could you answer again :

How does your uncaused "something" differ from an uncaused God?

The first answer was based on some misconceptions about what we were actually discussing.

I answered the question using the definition of "God" that I provided, which you have just agreed I am free to use. What you call a "more accurate definition" seems to refer to your private langauge.

My understanding is that in your private language, "God" is equivalent to the natural, initial state of affairs that I discussed. So JW-"God" and fredonly-"stuff" refer to the exact same thing (i.e..there is no distinction).

I have a question: does Jehovah = "God", in your private language? This would make you a "Stuff-Witness", in my terms.

BTW, I am not "triggered" by your private language; I simply don't want to participate in using language that no one else would understand. I hope you agree that what is important is: what exists, not the labels we apply.

[JehovahsWitness]

My understanding is that in your private language, "God" is equivalent to the natural, initial state of affairs that I discussed.

I presume when you say what you discussed you mean what you stated. Unless you have specific confirmation from me about one of your specific statements, you will have to take ownership of your own conclusions.

Now , to avoid misunderstanding, and properly establish if we do indeed have some common ground, all that remains is for you to confirm the following in the affirmative.


Do you confirm that: what you believe in and call "stuff" is a natural* uncaused first cause from which organization developped.

* "natural" as in that which directly or inferred to exist through physics