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]

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

Extrapolation is not entailment. Entailment means the physics theory predicts something, like general relativity predicted the big bang. The extrapolation I'm referring to is less certain, not entailed by specific theory, but consistent with what we know, and makes for a more reasonable hypothesis than a blind guess based on nothing.

[JehovahsWitness]

The extrapolation I'm referring to is less certain, not entailed by specific theory, but consistent with what we know ...

Is it entailed by the actual laws of nature ? I'm trying to understand what you mean specifically by "what we know"

... 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.

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

[fredonly]

Is it entailed by the actual laws of nature ? I'm trying to understand what you mean specifically by "what we know"

It is not an entailment, it is an abduction - the best hypothesis I'm aware of, for the facts we have about the world (=what we know). Those facts include the laws of physics, as well as the philosophical judgements I've made (including: there exist laws of nature that account for causation).

[JehovahsWitness]

Is it entailed by the actual laws of nature ? I'm trying to understand what you mean specifically by "what we know"

It is not an entailment, it is an abduction - the best hypothesis I'm aware of, for the facts we have about the world (=what we know). ....

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

Since it is not possible to determine the state of the uncaused cause, what philosophical mechanism lead you to abduct it was actually comprised of , subject (or limited ) to anything which it subsequently caused?

Nemo and Finneaus make abductions

ABDUCTION Abduction as a form of reasoning is relatively new. Charles Sanders Peirce called it abduction to infer a premise from a conclusion. For example, since if it rains, the grass gets wet, one can abduce (hypothesize) that it probably rained. Strictly speaking, abductive reasoning is fallacious, a logical error. But Peirce argued that this kind of reasoning has evolved in humans, who have become adept at selecting the best hypothesis to explain the condition. Source : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... ction.html

More from Nemo and Finneaus:

• Nemo and Finneaus discuss theology
  viewtopic.php?p=1156953#p1156953

• Nemo and Finneaus discuss physics
  viewtopic.php?p=1156896#p1156896

• Nemo and Finneaus discuss cosmology viewtopic.php?p=1157111#p1157111

• Nemo and Finneaus make an abduction
  viewtopic.php?p=1157173#p1157173

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #184]

Apart from you apparently trying to make a tangle of words in order to cause confusion, the bottom line here is that nobody really knows how the universe (or cosmic stuff) got started, and an attempt to force through a conclusion that an intelligent being (with of courser no cause or origin of its' own) started it all off.

Even if you could wangle that conclusion, it still would not tell you which god it was. This Cosmic origins argument, so prised by God - apologists is actually a total waste of effort, at least against atheist apoilogists who have been around the block a few times, but their posts are better ignored eh, JW?

[fredonly]

Since it is not possible to determine the state of the uncaused cause, what philosophical mechanism lead you to abduct it was actually comprised of , subject (or limited ) to anything which it subsequently caused?

As previously discussed, there is exists a fundamental (bottom) layer of reality. As illustration: current physics considers quantum fields the fundamental. Everything in the universe is composed of these, in some form. The form changes over time, but they're fundamentally still composed of quanta of these quantum fields, or the fields themselves. It's possible there is something deeper, but the same concept of a fundamental layer remains.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
In the philosophical literature, the term "abduction" is used in two related but different senses. In both senses, the term refers to some form of explanatory reasoning. However, in the historically first sense, it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in generating hypotheses, while in the sense in which it is used most frequently in the modern literature it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in justifying hypotheses. In the latter sense, abduction is also often called "Inference to the Best Explanation."

[TRANSPONDER]

Thanks. Not only for explaining Abduction, which does not here mean being strapped face down on a table in a flying saucer, and in touching on the current thoughts on cosmic origins, which seem to even more up in the air than ever, but don't lead to a god any more than they ever did, never mind which one.

[JehovahsWitness]

Since it is not possible to determine the state of the uncaused cause, what philosophical mechanism lead you to abduct it was actually comprised of , subject (or limited ) to anything which it subsequently caused?

..., but they're fundamentally still composed of quanta of {snip}

You are essentially restating the my question back as an answer- that's circular. I understand that you are stating what physical phenonema are "composed of" and making a guess from there that that which we don't know about must be composed of some form of that which we do. Why? Try and find words for to explain why you believe that is the {quote} "best explanation" of the nature of the uncaused cause.

Nemo and Finneaus make abductions

[fredonly]

[*]

You are essentially restating the my question back as an answer- that's circular. I understand that you are stating what physical phenonema are "composed of" and making a guess from there that that which we don't know about must be composed of some form of that which we do. Why?

I previously explained why I believe there is a fundamental, lowest level of physical reality: it is because the alternative is a viscious, infinite regress of increasingly more fundamental layers/components.

There's no reason to think anything "pops into" existence, and the fundamental is not composed of anything more primitive. Therefore this fundamental must have always existed.

Whatever is fundamental, exists by necessary brute fact. In philosophy, a brute fact is something that exists without deeper explanation. To exist necessarily means its nonexistence is metaphysically impossible.

As a reference: philosophical theists believe "God" exists out of metaphysical necessity, but it is the case that more broadly: whatever is the fundamental basis of reality would have to exist out of metaphysical necessity.

[JehovahsWitness]

[*]

You are essentially restating the my question back as an answer- that's circular. I understand that you are stating what physical phenonema are "composed of" and making a guess from there that that which we don't know about must be composed of some form of that which we do. Why?

I previously explained why I believe there is a fundamental, lowest level of physical reality: it is because the alternative is a viscious, infinite regress of increasingly more fundamental layers/components.

I am not asking about why you believe in a uncaused caused but why you conclude it must be composed of that which is caused. My question is in the meme , do you not undersrand it?

Nemo and Finneaus make abductions