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

[TRANSPONDER]

...
I call this something, "stuff".

Tomates-Tomartoes. We both believe (and it IS belief not drawn directly from any scientific data) in an infinite, unmeasurable G- ... excuse me ..."stuff" that exists outside of the realm of time and space. Your label has two more letters and a different vowel, if we call it X our beliefs on thus point would be identical.

It's been diverting, seeing you try to make a case out of nothing. It's simple. While it appears that our universe had a beginning, we appear to be at a loss to come up with an explanation. That does not mean that'God# is the default. Because a god - Intelligent Creator - has les probability than even something from nothing. That's even before we get to 'Which god?' Cosmic origins, like origins of Life is a futile argument because nobody can prove it either way. Which is why, with Consciousness' Origins questions are considered the big Three of Theist apologetics. They are gaps for god, sure, but not proof of, or even evidence for a god, never mind which one.

The whole argument is based on assuming a god (and a particular one) to be the default theory and this is an irrational claim and is why the whole argument is a futile waste of time.

[fredonly]

...
I call this something, "stuff".

Tomates-Tomartoes. We both believe (and it IS belief not drawn directly from any scientific data) in an infinite, unmeasurable G- ... excuse me ..."stuff" that exists outside of the realm of time and space.

No, we don't. There's no basis for claiming anything was infinite, nor "beyond the realm of time and space". The data points to an era during which quantum effects were dominant.

[JehovahsWitness]

There's no basis for claiming anything was infinite...

Well something has to be or we would at some point have ...nothing.

There's no basis for claiming anything was ... "beyond the realm of time and space".

Well since space and time evidently has its limits, what are you suggesting exists beyond said limits...? Nothing?

The data points to an era during which quantum effects were dominant.

Any era with measurable effects indicates singularity has not been reached so such theories are is ultimately irrelevant. Quantum effects are just our way of speaking about the the forces that govern our the universe, forces we do not yet fully understand. Singularity is not is just failing to understand the rules, it's the point at which all the rules break down.

[fredonly]

There's no basis for claiming anything was infinite...

Well something has to be or we would at some point have ...nothing.

Assertion without evidence or argument.

There's no basis for claiming anything was ... "beyond the realm of time and space".

Well since space and time evidently has its limits, what are you suggesting exists beyond said limits...? Nothing?

There's no evidence of anything existing "beyond" space and time.

The data points to an era during which quantum effects were dominant.

Any era with measurable effects indicates singularity has not been reached so these theories are is ultimately irrelevant. The point is beyond what is any such eras.

You agreed a "singularity" doesn't exist, so of course it can't be "reached". As I said, educated guesses are better than pure speculation. You're speculating, without evidence or argument, that there is something "beyond...such eras".

[JehovahsWitness]

There's no basis for claiming anything was infinite...

Well something has to be or we would at some point have ...nothing.

Assertion without evidence or argument.

No, a logical inevitability.

... nothingness is logically impossible.

[JehovahsWitness]

There's no evidence of anything existing "beyond" space and time.

So are you claiming ...

(a) space and time (and matter) are infinite or

(b) space and time space and matter are finite and beyond their limits there must have been ... nothing


Please clarify

JW

Cosmologists generally agree that the Universe began 13.8 billion years ago in the Big Bang. This is based on decades of observations showing that all the galaxies in the Universe are flying apart: in other words, the Universe is expanding. If you run the tape backwards, it looks like everything in the Universe was originally clumped together. The implication is that, at the very beginning, everything was compressed into an infinitely tiny dot or "singularity" – when then expanded astonishingly fast in the Big Bang.

The origin of time is tied up with the conditions in the earliest Universe. It's tempting to ask what happened before this, but most physicists will say this is meaningless. "Time only exists as the Universe exists," says astrophysicist Emma Osborne at the University of York in the UK. "The moment the Universe came into existence is when time started." - source bbc website

[JehovahsWitness]

You agreed a "singularity" doesn't exist, ...

Where did I do that?

[fredonly]

You agreed a "singularity" doesn't exist, ...

Where did I do that?

Here:

...You're still treating a "singularity" as something that existed ...

No I am not, singularity is not something that existed, it is the point at which out ability to measure that which we know presently exists. .. (space, time, matter) ends.

[JehovahsWitness]

You agreed a "singularity" doesn't exist, ...

Where did I do that?

Here:

...You're still treating a "singularity" as something that existed ...

No I am not, singularity is not something that existed, it is the point at which out ability to measure that which we know presently exists. .. (space, time, matter) ends.

When I said "singularity is not something that existed" I meant as a seperate entity. Like darkness is not a thing its the absence of light, is as I said above is a point in a process. Hope that clear things up.

JW

[fredonly]

You agreed a "singularity" doesn't exist, ...

Where did I do that?

Here:

...You're still treating a "singularity" as something that existed ...

No I am not, singularity is not something that existed, it is the point at which out ability to measure that which we know presently exists. .. (space, time, matter) ends.

When I said "singularity is not something that existed" I meant as a seperate entity. Like darkness is not a thing its the absence of light, is as I said above is a point in a process. Hope that clear things up.

JW

Yes, it makes it clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

The so-called "big bang singularity" refers to the caculation of an equation of general relativity for calculating the size and density of the universe at points in time. As time approaches 0, the calculated size approaches 0 and the density approaches infinity. The equation doesn't apply to t=0, because it is mathematically invalid to divide by 0, so it's a mathematical singularity. That never implied "a singilarity existed", it meant general relativity could not make a prediction.

Inflationary theory solved this dilemma (see this article).

Other theories (e.g. String Theory; loop quantum gravity) also account for the state of the universe without a mathematical singularity.