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 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?

I never claimed " it must be composed of that which is caused", but I did answer your question. Try asking a question about what I actually said, since it sounds like you didn't understand it.

[JehovahsWitness]

. Try asking a question about what I actually said, since it sounds like you didn't understand it.

I will do my best.


THE SELF ASSEMBLING RUBIK'S CUBE

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

If (as you claim) complex entities did not exist early in the universe , yet they do now, why is that not indicative of direction?




JW

[fredonly]

If (as you claim) complex entities did not exist early in the universe , yet they do now, why is that not indicative of direction?

Why think it IS indicative of direction?

[JehovahsWitness]

If (as you claim) complex entities did not exist early in the universe , yet they do now, why is that not indicative of direction?

Why think it IS indicative of direction?

Well spotted, let me rephrase the question:

If (as you claim) complex entities did not exist early in the universe , yet they do now, is that indicative of direction?

[fredonly]

If (as you claim) complex entities did not exist early in the universe , yet they do now, why is that not indicative of direction?

Why think it IS indicative of direction?

Well spotted, let me rephrase the question:

If (as you claim) complex entities did not exist early in the universe , yet they do now, is that indicative of direction?

No. Complexity arises because of entropy.

[JehovahsWitness]

If (as you claim) complex entities did not exist early in the universe , yet they do now, why is that not indicative of direction?

Why think it IS indicative of direction?

Well spotted, let me rephrase the question:

If (as you claim) complex entities did not exist early in the universe , yet they do now, is that indicative of direction?

No. Complexity arises because of entropy.

How so ? Please explain.





JW

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #196]
In statistical thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the number of different ways that a set of objects can be arranged.

Small simple molecules form larger more complex molecules because they are more energetically and entropically favorable.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #196]
In statistical thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the number of different ways that a set of objects can be arranged.

Small simple molecules form larger more complex molecules because they are more energetically and entropically favorable.

Does this indicate anything about the nature of the uncaused cause?



JW

Complexity arises because of entropy.

...organization developing from a low entropy to high entropy state is probable

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

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #196]
In statistical thermodynamics, entropy is a measure of the number of different ways that a set of objects can be arranged.

Small simple molecules form larger more complex molecules because they are more energetically and entropically favorable.

Does this indicate anything about the nature of the uncaused cause?

Only that it could develop a low entropy state.

[JehovahsWitness]

... it could develop a low entropy state.

Would it not need to be subject to entropy for that to be the case?




JW

I never claimed " it must be composed of that which is caused"...

(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