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

[gadfly]

Even the great skeptic Bart Ehrman confesses that natural explanations of the origins of Christianity are unsatisfactory.

No, he doesn't. Whatever gave it you that idea? He describes the origins of Christianity in his book, "How Jesus Became God". His account is plausible, and consistent with naturalism.

A fair question; it was a quote from one of his books. I confess it would take me some time to recover it--perhaps he has changed his mind since he wrote it. His explanation in his podcast is that the disciples had "visions" (i.e., hallucinations) of Jesus and from this they concluded that Jesus had been, not raised, but resurrected; that is, Jesus' body was not merely raised (like Lazarus') but raised and transformed--something that many Jews anticipated would happen one day to all faithful Jews at the end of time all at once. It was never thought it would happen to one man, in the middle of history.

Problems abound from Bart's hypothesis. It requires that 500 + people suffer from hallucinations simultaneously. Already this is highly improbable. But it gets worse: We must now ascribe to each disciple an inability to differentiate between a vision and an unprecedented event: visions were well known in antiquity; Resurrection was not. Even if the mass of disciples suffered from hallucinations involving Jesus, the plausible conclusion would NOT be that Jesus was resurrected, but that Jesus' ghost was received by God--this would have been quite comforting to them, considering his rejection by the Jewish elites. We must also assume that the disciples did not compare their visions--after all, it is highly improbable that 500 people suffering from hallucinations would hallucinate the same phenomenon--would Thomas not say something like, "Did you see how he raised his right hand...?" and Apollos not retort, "What? His hands were at his side the entire time as he spoke to me," and Stephen would correct, "Apollos, he never once spoke to you." And so on and so on and so on.

In summary, The hypothesis that 500 disciples at one point a) simultaneously suffered from hallucinations, b) failed to contrast their visions, c) inferred from hallucinations that Jesus was not merely spiritually received by Israel's god but was bodily resurrected... is, frankly, asinine. To Bart (and apparently you) I say: Find another natural explanation.

gadfly

[fredonly]

Even the great skeptic Bart Ehrman confesses that natural explanations of the origins of Christianity are unsatisfactory.

No, he doesn't....

A fair question; it was a quote from one of his books. I confess it would take me some time to recover it--perhaps he has changed his mind since he wrote it.

I've read a lot of his books, and subscribe to his blog. Even his first book aimed at the public ("Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium") proposes perfectly plausible, natural explanations. So I'm pretty confident you're mistaken. That's the sort of thing only an apologist would claim.

His explanation in his podcast is that the disciples had "visions" (i.e., hallucinations) of Jesus and from this they concluded that Jesus had been, not raised, but resurrected; that is, Jesus' body was not merely raised (like Lazarus') but raised and transformed--something that many Jews anticipated would happen one day to all faithful Jews at the end of time all at once. It was never thought it would happen to one man, in the middle of history.

That's a mischaracterization of what Ehrman says. He says only that one or more disciples had some sort of subjective experience that was interpreted as Jesus "rising" from the dead. It was Paul (in 1Cor) who discussed a "transformed" body - there's no evidence of this claim existing before Paul.

Problems abound from Bart's hypothesis. It requires that 500 + people suffer from hallucinations simultaneously.

The problem is with your claim. You're treating a line in a poem composed in Greek, and quoted by Paul, as a confirmed, accurate historical account, and reading into it your Gospel-influenced understanding of an alleged Resurrection. It's highly unlikely that there were 500 followers at the time. There may have been some instance in which a gathering of people were led to "feel" Jesus' presence, as many do today in Church. It may have even been a "charismatic" experience, like when Pentecostals babble gibberish and attest they are speaking in tongues. We simply can't know, from a poem created to spread a belief.

it gets worse: We must now ascribe to each disciple an inability to differentiate between a vision and an unprecedented event: visions were well known in antiquity; Resurrection was not.

The poem says only that Jesus "appeared". Even a subjective experience would be unprecedented to them.

We don't know that all 12 disciples had an experience. The Greek composer of the poem may have assumed they did. Paul only met Peter, James, and John.

Research has shown that subjective experiences of recently deceased loved ones are actually quite common, irrespective of the fact Peter (and any others who may also had some experience) wouldn't have expected it. What does seem plausible is that they sufferred from cognitive dissonance from the fact that their Messiah was unexpectedly killed, while his eschataological prophecy had not been fulfilled.

... the plausible conclusion would NOT be that Jesus was resurrected, but that Jesus' ghost was received by God

We don't really know what Peter, James and John believed. "Appears" could mean anything. They may actually have believed it was ghostly. From 1Cor, we know that some Corinthians belied that, even though Paul didn't.

Paul himself is extremely vague about his own experience. He appends himself to the poem he received, but that seems to be in order to establish his authority. In Gal 1:15-16 he just says, "God revealed his son to me". In 1:Cor9:1 he says, "have I not seen Jesus?".

But Paul also implies he's seen the "third heaven" (2Cor12:2) - implying he was some sort of mystic, mistaking trance-induced dreams for actual experiences.

We must also assume that the disciples did not compare their visions--after all, it is highly improbable that 500 people suffering from hallucinations would hallucinate the same phenomenon--would Thomas not say something like, "Did you see how he raised his right hand...?" and Apollos not retort, "What? His hands were at his side the entire time as he spoke to me," and Stephen would correct, "Apollos, he never once spoke to you." And so on and so on and so on.

Wow! You are so creative! The evidence is limited to the brief poem of unknown composition, and inspired by events whose actual nature we can only guess at. There's no recorded dialogs with Jesus' reanimated corpse, or between people listed in the poem as you suggested. You're treating your speculative fiction as evidence, which is ludicrous.

[JehovahsWitness]

You showed that "nothingness" is logically impossible.

That answers the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" It's because nothingness is logically impossible. It has no other entailments.

Exactly...we call that "something" which MUST by definition exist (and be infinite) ... God.

That's quite a leap! We had agreed that it is logically necessary for something to exist. Now you're asserting (without evidence or argument) it's infinite.

What other word do you suggest for that which as always existed ?

[fredonly]

You showed that "nothingness" is logically impossible.

That answers the question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" It's because nothingness is logically impossible. It has no other entailments.

Exactly...we call that "something" which MUST by definition exist (and be infinite) ... God.

That's quite a leap! We had agreed that it is logically necessary for something to exist. Now you're asserting (without evidence or argument) it's infinite.

What other word do you suggest for that which as always existed ?

If and only if there is an infinite past is it even possible for anything to have existed infinitely. That may or may not be the case, and that's why objected to you asserting that to be the case.

[JehovahsWitness]

... nothingness is logically impossible.

... only if there is an infinite past is it even possible for anything to have existed infinitely. ...

Oh so you are saying that "something" MUST always have existed but you are questioning the existence of always. Is that your point?

[TRANSPONDER]

... nothingness is logically impossible.

... only if there is an infinite past is it even possible for anything to have existed infinitely. ...

Oh so you are saying that "something" MUST always have existed but you are questioning the existence of always. Is that your point?

I think you are wasting your time with Cosmic Origin arguments. You would already be familiar with why if Bible apologists ever Really read posts (I think they skip over them looking for things to quibble about (Keyword exegesis).

Bottom line - we do not know how the cosmos started, whether that is all the known universe or the basic stuff in which our universe (and maybe others) formed.

"We do not know" does not mean 'Goddunnit is the default theory'. Cosmic origins do not get you to an intelligent creator, never mind a particular religion.

Since I have begun to expound my Pet (not to say crackpot) theories , here's my idea on it: you do not need anything or anyone to make Nothing. It can effectively always have existed.

But virtual particles implies that nothing can produce basic particles, and that assembles into the basics of matter. That universe - creation may be going on all the time would get over 'why did o it start at a particular time?' as well as why is there something? Mathematical experts in physics have worked out 'because mathematically, there has to be'. I am no going to argue with them.

In addition, the logical conundrum fails as an act of natural creation is a problem (how?) while an act of intelligent creation is two problems. Argument from infinite regression isn't even part of any debate other than the god - clam and theists can only answer 'who made god' with a faithclaim, which merely flags up the paucity and paltriness of Theist apologetics.
'God is eternal!' "Then why can't the cosmic stuff be eternal?"

So, though I hate to echo our pal 1213, " I see no intelligent (nor logical) reason to credit any Theist argument from Cosmic origins", even before we get to "Which god?".

So Cosmic origins fails as the last word reliable atheist - stumper they always thought it to be, but is rather the last word theism debunker.

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #25]
I'm saying it's an open question as to whether the past is infinite or finite. Your statement entailed the assumption it was infinite:

Exactly...we call that "something" which MUST by definition exist (and be infinite) ...

[JehovahsWitness]

... nothingness is logically impossible.

... it's an open question as to whether the past is infinite or finite.

Not really, The past is a time based construct and as such it is finite. Beyond "the past" is singularity , which by definition is infinite meaning impossible to measure by anything including time. We call that infinite singularity.. . God.

[fredonly]

... nothingness is logically impossible.

... only if there is an infinite past is it even possible for anything to have existed infinitely. ...

Oh so you are saying that "something" MUST always have existed but you are questioning the existence of always. Is that your point?

I'm saying it's an open question as to whether the past is infinite or finite.

So is the answer to my question yes or no?

It's a poorly worded question. My position is that the world exists, and there is no point in the past at which the world didn't exist. So I'm fine with saying the world always existed, but want you to understand this doesn't mean I think the past is infinite.

[JehovahsWitness]

...My position is that the world exists, and there is no point in the past at which the world didn't exist. ...

That's a scientifically untenable position. Are you anti-science?

... this doesn't mean I think the past is infinite.

As I said ...the past is a time based construct and as such it is finite. Beyond "the past" is singularity , which by definition is infinite, meaning it is impossible to measure by anything including time. We call that infinite singularity.. . God