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]

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.

I stated MY UNDERSTANDING, and I expect you to correct me if I misinterpreted or misstated your position. I am not going to take the time to search your posts. If you wish to converse further, then please clarify your position.

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

No. That is incorrect. The existence of an uncaused, initial state is definitely not inferred to exist from physics. I inferred its existence by philosophical analysis:
-avoiding a vicious infinite regress of both past time and the causal chain
- inferring the metaphysical axiom that causation is a product of laws of nature.

One additional clarification: laws of nature are the actual laws; laws of physics are the theories of physicists that reflect their attempts at deciphering the actual laws of nature. So when I said, "3. Everything that is causally connected through laws of nature to 1&2", this was a reference to the actual laws, not physics theory.

Now that I've corrected your misunderstanding of my position, please reciprocate by clarifying what I misunderstood of yours.

[JehovahsWitness]

... I expect you to correct me if I misinterpreted or misstated your position.

No, I will only do so if I feel your misunderstanding is relevant, otherwise I shall simply ignore it - I'm finding the discussion most edifying but I font wish to be here all year. If I make no comment on one of your statements, please take it that I consider it irrelevant (or not relevant to the immediate point at hand).

[JehovahsWitness]

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

No... The existence of an uncaused, initial state is definitely not inferred to exist from physics.

So just to clarify, please confirm

1. you DO believe in an uncaused cause
2. You do NOT believe its existence is inferred through physics (see point #2 below)
3. You DO believe this uncaused cause is natural (as opposed to unnatural)

So you hold that number 3 &4 are possible without #2, is that correct?

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.

... I see no rational reason to believe anything unnatural exists

[fredonly]

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

No... The existence of an uncaused, initial state is definitely not inferred to exist from physics.

So just to clarify, please confirm

1. you DO believe in an uncaused cause
2. You do NOT believe its existence is inferred through physics (see point #2 below)
3. You DO believe this uncaused cause is natural (as opposed to unnatural)

So you hold that number 3 &4 are possible without #2, is that correct?

I feel your misunderstanding is not relevant, so I shall simply ignore it

[JehovahsWitness]

So you hold that number 3 &4 are possible without #2, is that correct?

I feel your misunderstanding is not relevant, so I shall simply ignore it

Fair enough I found the relevant post so that's not a problem. You believe in an uncaused cause which you classify as natural despite believing that it is definitely not inferred to exist from physics.


JW

... It is natural.

[JehovahsWitness]

...it is not currently possible to determine the state of reality prior to the inflationary period which preceded the hot big bang.

.. pointing to a past era that isn't explainable by known physics isn't evidence of anything...

The pre-big bang conditions aren't like anything in the world today, so it's difficult or impossible to analyze.

QUESTION considering your statements above, how do you know it was unorganized and evolved/morphed without direction?

Nemo and Finneaus discuss cosmology

[fredonly]

QUESTION considering your statements above, how do you know it was unorganized and evolved/morphed without direction?

1) by extrapolating from what is known: complex entities did not exist early in the universe. 2) organization existing by brute fact (without cause) is improbable; organization developing from a low entropy to high entropy state is probable. 3) Direction entails a director: an entity with extreme organization

[Diogenes]

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.
....

Right... "God's Word." This stuff belongs in Theology Prayer Group, not in the apologetics section. The assumption that there exists somewhere, "God's Word" begs the question.
See the guidelines for Christianity and Apologetics:

1. We are debating Christianity, pro and con, for and against, not debating with the assumption that Christianity is true. Please realize that people on the forum are from all worldview backgrounds and do not necessarily share the same assumptions.

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true.

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION considering your statements above, how do you know it was unorganized and evolved/morphed without direction?

1) by extrapolating from what is known:

When you extrapolated from what is known to theorize about what is unknown..is that not "physics theory"?

...Everything that is causally connected through laws of nature to 1&2[/i]", this was a reference to the actual laws, not physics theory.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.