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 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?

In ontology. "the world" = the totality of existence, not Earth.

As I said ...the past is a time based construct and as such it is finite. Beyond "the past" is singularity ,

I agree the past is finite, but it's logically impossible for there to be anything prior, if that's what you mean by "beyond". A "singularity" is not something that exists. Physicists apply the term to a point at which established physics break down.

... which by definition is infinite, meaning it is impossible to measure by anything including time. We call that infinite singularity.. . God

Is this a statement of faith? It's certainly not a reasonable inference from established facts.

[JehovahsWitness]

In ontology. "the world" = the totality of existence, not Earth.

So you're point is that existence has always existed?

I agree the past is finite, but it's logically impossible for there to be anything prior...

So your point is time is finite but beyond its limits, there must have been ... nothing ? Does that not bring you back to the original point?

... nothingness is logically impossible.

[fredonly]

In ontology. "the world" = the totality of existence, not Earth.

So you're point is that existence has always existed?

That's ambiguous. Rather: the totality of reality exists at all points of time.

I agree the past is finite, but it's logically impossible for there to be anything prior...

So your point is time is finite but beyond its limits, there must have been ... nothing ? Does that not bring you back to the original point?

Ambiguous. Time being finite to the past implies an initial state of affairs. There is nothing earlier, but that should not be read as implying "nothingness was a prior state of affairs". But yes, it's restating my earlier point:

... nothingness is logically impossible.

[JehovahsWitness]

....There is nothing earlier ...

There is no "earlier " since earlier implies a point in time. "There is nothing earlier [than singularity]" is a nonsence expression, like saying "There is nothing bluer than 12". There is no "earlier" .. all we can say is we can guess what is beyond singularity, but logic demands that there is "something" rather than "nothing" because ...

... nothingness is logically impossible.

[fredonly]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #34]

You're still treating a "singularity" as something that existed, but perhaps we can agree that physics can only predict the state of the universe back to a degree. Anything earlier is guesswork. But I would say that educated guess are better than pure speculation.

[JehovahsWitness]

...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.

... physics can only predict the state of the universe back to a degree.

Right .

... Anything earlier is guesswork. But I would say that educated guess are better than pure speculation.

If there's no time there's no "earlier" ... But ok , off you go then ... what is your "educated guess"
(a) Something?
(b) Nothing or ...
(c) other [explain]

... nothingness is logically impossible.

[fredonly]

... Anything earlier is guesswork. But I would say that educated guess are better than pure speculation.

If there's no time there's no "earlier" ... But ok , off you go then ... what is your "educated guess"
(a) Something?
(b) Nothing or ...
(c) other [explain]

There is "earlier" than the limits of scientific predictions. There was "something". There are a variety of educated guesses by cosmologists, and this is what I was referring to. They all are based on the observatios that general relativity breaks down, and a more complete understanding of quantum mechanics would be needed to understand it.

[JehovahsWitness]

... Anything earlier is guesswork. But I would say that educated guess are better than pure speculation.

If there's no time there's no "earlier" ... But ok , off you go then ... what is your "educated guess"
(a) Something?
(b) Nothing or ...
(c) other [explain]

.... There was "something".

I agree...we call that "someting" God.
viewtopic.php?p=1156225#p1156225

[fredonly]

... Anything earlier is guesswork. But I would say that educated guess are better than pure speculation.

If there's no time there's no "earlier" ... But ok , off you go then ... what is your "educated guess"
(a) Something?
(b) Nothing or ...
(c) other [explain]

.... There was "something".

I agree...we call that "someting" God.
viewtopic.php?p=1156225#p1156225

I call this something, "stuff". The mere fact that this stuff preceded a state that we can discern doesn't imply an intelligent agent.

[JehovahsWitness]

...
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.