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]

You just got that under the wire by asking a question.

The answers are simple. Apologetics have moved on and as Dark matter 2525 has God tell Geoffrey 'The old ontological arguments don't cut it any more'. They don't. Anselm's argument that if we can imagine a god, it must exist doesn't even tell us which God it is, even if it were to validate Theism, which it doesn't, any more than Kalam does (the universe may have had a Cause but that doesn't make it an 'Intelligent one'),

In fact, like the other argument from evil, and indeed Life and consciousness, even if they were valid, which they really are not (at best 'Don't know') it doesn't make a case for a particular religion.

The atheist position being that the materialist default (all we know about what works, works without a god being needed) means that 'God' is not the answer to unknowns, but 'probably some 'Natural' (material) cause, but we don't know what.

Again, Unknown does not mean a god, never mind which one.

So consciousness, and morality also do not make a case for a god, never mind any particular one. Morality is better explained as a human socio - evolutionary process based on survival trough well - being, if any objective reason is needed, which it really isn't, and more than the rules of chess are based on any Cosmic law of physics. It works, and that is all we need.

We can dismiss Abiogenesis/Evolution vs Creationism/Genesis. As with the above, it gets us no further than an intelligent Creator, not a particular religion.

It is of course, down to the bible and whether we can credit it. And never mind the OT as Jesus made it all New, or at least nice and foggy, so you can pick what you like.

So why should we listen to Jesus? Not because the morality is good, particularly. It is no more than a vague appeal to play nice, except with slaves, about whose emancipation Jesus says not a thing other than they should submit just as we should submit to God.

In a Pig's eye, we should.

No the only Question about the Bible is whether we can trust the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, by a miracle, not because he had no business dying so quik and the tomb being empty because Arimathea let the revived Jesus out as soon as the coast was clear.

It's a hypothesis and as we know from Theist apologetics, if you can't disprove it 100% it must be true.

That is the only real debate - the resurrection, true or not, and never mind the great old Apologists, or a collation of them

Let's have it again. Does anyone recall that old apologetic gambit? Like Geoffrey, I hav d no idea what it was supposed to prove.

[fredonly]

[Replying to Brucknerian in post #1]
I started reading the article, and got to this part:

The question of Leibniz: Why is there something, rather than nothing? can just as well be rephrased: Why is there existence, rather than no existence? And while this may seem to be but the same question expressed in a different manner, the former as put by Leibniz can lend the impression that it has only to do with this material world of things, while it is more evident that the latter takes into account the fact that we live not only in a physical world, but we live in a world in which we are consciously aware
of our existence, and this fact of our very being cannot be dismissed as being a part of this something of which Leibniz speaks. It is this latter, more precise phrasing, that defines the question and the answer to it that follows.

The bold part seemed promising because I've brought up the same question, to demonstrate the folly of Leibniz's question. But the author doesn't actually answer the question (not in the subset of the article I read). He infers that the question of existence only applies to the natural world. To fully answer the question, he'd have to answer:

Why is there a God, rather than nothing?"

The fact is, the question of existence is a loaded question- it's loaded with the assumption that nothing should exist in the absence of a cause. Further, the answer is a special pleading because he doesn't consider the question I posed- he exempts God from the implied metaphysical imperative.

You tell me if he eventually addreses this. I'm not willing to read the entire paper searching for it.

[gadfly]

You just got that under the wire by asking a question.

The answers are simple. Apologetics have moved on and as Dark matter 2525 has God tell Geoffrey 'The old ontological arguments don't cut it any more'. They don't. Anselm's argument that if we can imagine a god, it must exist doesn't even tell us which God it is, even if it were to validate Theism, which it doesn't, any more than Kalam does (the universe may have had a Cause but that doesn't make it an 'Intelligent one'),

In fact, like the other argument from evil, and indeed Life and consciousness, even if they were valid, which they really are not (at best 'Don't know') it doesn't make a case for a particular religion.

The atheist position being that the materialist default (all we know about what works, works without a god being needed) means that 'God' is not the answer to unknowns, but 'probably some 'Natural' (material) cause, but we don't know what.

Again, Unknown does not mean a god, never mind which one.

So consciousness, and morality also do not make a case for a god, never mind any particular one. Morality is better explained as a human socio - evolutionary process based on survival trough well - being, if any objective reason is needed, which it really isn't, and more than the rules of chess are based on any Cosmic law of physics. It works, and that is all we need.

We can dismiss Abiogenesis/Evolution vs Creationism/Genesis. As with the above, it gets us no further than an intelligent Creator, not a particular religion.

It is of course, down to the bible and whether we can credit it. And never mind the OT as Jesus made it all New, or at least nice and foggy, so you can pick what you like.

So why should we listen to Jesus? Not because the morality is good, particularly. It is no more than a vague appeal to play nice, except with slaves, about whose emancipation Jesus says not a thing other than they should submit just as we should submit to God.

In a Pig's eye, we should.

No the only Question about the Bible is whether we can trust the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, by a miracle, not because he had no business dying so quik and the tomb being empty because Arimathea let the revived Jesus out as soon as the coast was clear.

It's a hypothesis and as we know from Theist apologetics, if you can't disprove it 100% it must be true.

That is the only real debate - the resurrection, true or not, and never mind the great old Apologists, or a collation of them

Let's have it again. Does anyone recall that old apologetic gambit? Like Geoffrey, I hav d no idea what it was supposed to prove.

I apologize for what is certain to be a sloppy mosaic of quotes and unquotes--I am still figuring out the mechanics of this system.

'The old ontological arguments don't cut it any more'. They don't. Anselm's argument that if we can imagine a god, it must exist doesn't even tell us which God it is, even if it were to validate Theism, which it doesn't, any more than Kalam does (the universe may have had a Cause but that doesn't make it an 'Intelligent one'),

I mostly agree that the ontological argument fails; but only because of its subjectivity. I find it best to work backward: if there were in fact a God (a first cause, to shift arguments) then the notion of him not existing would be a contradiction. But Anselm's argument requires a subjective grasp of God--we should remember that the argument for him did not originate in an armchair but during intense meditation--it is a subjective argument.

I disagree, however, with the suggestion that a First Cause could be "unintelligent" or "unconscious" or "unpersonal"--whatever term you please. One needs to explain the catalyst that provoked the First Cause to Cause something. If the catalyst was external, then we no longer have a First Cause; it is that prior catalyst that is the first cause; if the catalyst were internal, then we must step beyond the limitations of cause and effect and embrace something that is supernatural--something with free will, uncaused by external forces.

This, in my opinion, is a major fault of your response--you use the term 'God' but give no definition. For instance, you say

Again, Unknown does not mean a god, never mind which one.

Which deities match the profile of the deity of the philosophers, which was merged with the deity of the Bible? Hinduism, Buddhism, ancient Egyptian religions, ancient Canaanite, ancient Roman--none of these claim their various deities to be First Cause or Necessary Being.

No the only Question about the Bible is whether we can trust the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, by a miracle, not because he had no business dying so quik and the tomb being empty because Arimathea let the revived Jesus out as soon as the coast was clear.

It's a hypothesis and as we know from Theist apologetics, if you can't disprove it 100% it must be true.

I don't think the Christian position is so desperate as that. Let's turn the issue on its head--can skeptics explain the origins of Christianity (i.e., why the first disciples of Jesus made the absurd claim that they did about their Rabbi) by natural means that are compelling--plausible, probable, devoid of ad hoc posits, possessing explanator power.

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

[TRANSPONDER]

The basic of Cosmic Origins is Unknown, not 'a god', never mind which one.

But as came up in a discussion before, supposing there was an origin to the stuff of the cosmos , rather than some eternal basis (consider virtual particles, they apparently come from nothing) why does the origin have to be intelligent rather than not? And logically, if the problem of a natural origin start of creation to the cosmic stuff is a problem; the origin start or cause of whatever started the stuff off and having it intelligent is two problems, and the simpler hypothesis or claim at least, is the one to be preferred, so a material start rather than ID one is the (unknown) explanation to be preferred.

The mechanics of Anselm's thinking seem to me to be irrelevant. The problem is twofold, that humans can imagine something supernatural (as n imaginary extension of the natural, like little humans with wings, or flying lizards than can breathe fire) does not mean they have to exist.

Second, even if one could think a god into existence, it would not tell us which one it was, so it would not justify any particular religion.

To do that, you need to validate the bible, or rather the NT or specifically, the resurrection. Since if that is false, Christianity is false.

So I can only give my take; that Paul was a real person, the disciples were thus real persons and probably Jesus was a real person.

But the gospel account is not reliable. The contradictions of the resurrection account make it unreliable, and Mark doesn't have such an account which implies that, originally, there wasn't one. Given the references to the resurrection in Paul do not fit the events in the Gospels and those in Paul he equates with his own belated Vision, this implies the ones referenced by Paul were imaginary, too.

Paul took his creed to Gentiles and could tell them anything he wanted. We know that religions can start from one faker peddling his story, so Christian origins prove nothing , other than it attracted a lot of people.

cue: 'The disciples would not die for a lie'. Who says they did? Early church legend.

[fredonly]

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to fredonly in post #6]


Thanks. I would not have known. i don't often follow the arguments of the Bible experts, for or against the Bible being reliable and Christianity true. i have to confess that " I Have been working on my theory for thirty years" but unlike the others who say that I hope i do not sound like a crackpot.

[fredonly]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #7]
Consider reading that particular book. I think you'll find Ehrman's views very similar to your own.

BTW, Ehrman is a mainstream critical scholar, not the extreme skeptic some amateur apologists make him out to be.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #7]
Consider reading that particular book. I think you'll find Ehrman's views very similar to your own.

BTW, Ehrman is a mainstream critical scholar, not the extreme skeptic some amateur apologists make him out to be.

Thanks for the recommendation, but generally, when i have popped into podcasts by the Bible analysists (even the critical ones) I soon drop out again because they ALL seem to start from the same assumption: the gospel record is generally reliable, so we get Interpretations of the events to be not really what the disciples thought it was.

If any otherm have seen past this and realised that the crucifixion (and probably donkey - ride) is true, the gospels are not accounts by Jewish eyewitnesses, but dogma and faihclaims written by Greek Christians. This is detectable by clues, some of which (the virgin in Isaiah; the two donkeys( they alreadu know.

So if Ehrman or any of the others have clicked that the Gospels are Greek Christian propaganda, I may be interested. If not, then they have nothing useful to say. Well, maybe 9n details, but generally, they are like Flat earthists writing about Geography.

p.s This is even aside from the persistent assumption of markan priority when the clues that it cannot be are in front of their faces. But denialism and gingers in the ears is not limited to Bible believers. I'm not even talking about my Pet theory like Jesus was Barrabbas and the default possibility (that I don't actually belueve) that Jesus din't die on the cris, but the stuff that should be basic to the study, and yet the Experts don't seem to be aware of it.

[fredonly]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #9]
Critical scholars, when doing critical scholarship, do not treat the Gospels as generally reliable. That's what apologists do. Critical scholarship entails the attempt to extract some history from the flawed documents. For example, Ehrman's theory is that Jesus was an apoclyptic preacher (one of many; John the Baptiser was another) who taught that God would soon establish a new kingdom of God on earth, vanquishing the forces of evil that were so rampant . This would be ushered in by the arrival of a "son of man" (not himself). This much is pretty mainstream in critical scholarship. Ehman also believes Jesus was executed by Rome for treason, and his body left to rot for many days - and that the honorable burial story was an invention. He would not call the Gospels propoganda, since that's pejorative; he believes they are the product of sincere believers - who exercised creativity to make their theological points, as did those who passed along the anecdotes that are labelled "oral tradition" - a process Ehrman relates to the "telephone game".