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

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #68]
The pre-bang stuff was behaving per laws of nature (the actual way nature works), but it's unanalyzable under known physics.

If it is unanalyzable under known physics you can make no statement about it based on known physics. We are talking about an era when all known laws of physics breaks down but you claim to know that certain laws applied' you are contradicting yourself.

Statements based on what we know nothing about - the only thing you know (as opposed to believe) about this uncaused elusive and possibly nonphysical ... "stuff" , is that you don't know what it is or how it works. You have therefore made a statement of belief not science.

The pre-big bang conditions aren't like anything in the world today, so it's difficult or impossible to analyze.

Then stop insinuating that you can and have come to some conclusions based on what you know. Accept what you yourself said namely that it may well be non physical. A possibly non-physical, uncaused "stuff" that we cannot at present understand and are in no position to say what laws govern its existence...but from which the physical universe (governed by our present laws) emerged is as good a description of God as any.

[fredonly]

If it is unanalyzable under known physics you can make no statement about it based on known physics. We are talking about an era when all known laws of physics breaks down but you claim to know that certain laws applied' you are contradicting yourself.

There's no contradiction, you just don't seem to understand what I was saying. But if you're sure I made a contadiction, provide quotes of the contradictory statements.

Then stop insinuating that you can and have come to some convlusionx thereof.

I haven't made an argument from ignorance that it must be natural. You are free to insert God into this gap in scientific knowledge. I can't prove you wrong, but neither can you prove the era wasn't entirely natural and that it must be God (which would be an argument from ignorance by you). I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's the simplest, and best, explanation. The fact that we don't know everything about the natural world obviously doesn't disprove naturalism.

[Difflugia]

A possibly non-physical, uncaused "stuff" that we cannot at present understand and are in no position to say what laws govern its existence...but from which the physical universe (governed by our present laws) emerged is as good a description of God as any.

This might be the purest, most fundamental invocation of the god of the gaps I have seen yet. There are usually at least a few steps between "I don't know" and "God," but you've cut through all that tape and quite literally said that "I don't know" is, in fact, "as good a description of God as any." As rare as this is, I completely agree with you.

Brava!

[JehovahsWitness]

I can't prove you wrong...

That much is clear!

...I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's the simplest, and best, explanation. ....

Well to each his own beliefs but don't go getting all upperty with me as if you are not presenting a belief system just like the theist. You're just making educated guesses like the rest of us , yours just seems particularly fanciful to me.

[fredonly]

...I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's the simplest, and best, explanation. ....

Well to each his own beliefs but don't go getting all upperty with me as if you are not presenting a belief system just like the theist. You're just making educated guesses like the rest of us , yours just seems particularly fanciful to me.

How is attributing God to the question an "educated guess"? Is it because you "know" God is the creator, and this seems a logical place to insert him?

My "belief system" doesn't depend on faith and hope. It's based on evidence and reason- largely abductive reasoning.

[JehovahsWitness]

My "belief system" {snip}...

But its a belief system nontheless and that's the point; what else can it be when you don't know and (at least at present) have no way of knowing? You don't know what it *is* but somehow you "know" what it isn't?

That's like saying anything could be in that box ... except shoes.

We both draw conclusions based on the same evidence and largely abductive reasoning. You however believe that nothing could possibly be different than what is observable now ...and if mankind had thought like you, we would be still living in caves.

The very essence of scientific thinking is that what we observe may not be all there is? Could there be other laws, more dimensions, other universes that operate in other dimensions. You say no, true thinkers say ...could be.

[JehovahsWitness]

... nothingness is logically impossible.

... I think the past is finite for philosophical reasons, and this entails an uncaused initial state. ...

... pointing to a past era that isn't explainable by known physics isn't evidence of anything. It's not evidence of gods nor evidence of naturalism. It's consistent with both....

... There was "something". [...] I call this something, "stuff". ...

...the stuff that became the universe is unanalyzable with current physics.

INFINITE

adjective
Having no boundaries or limits; impossible to measure or calculate

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

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

...everything that exists in the natural world ... could include a multiverse of infinitely many universes, if this exists. Refering to "material reality" leaves open the possibility of the immaterial (existing independently of the natural world ...

[fredonly]

But its a belief system nontheless and that's the point; what else can it be when you don't know and (at least at present) have no way of knowing? You don't know what it *is* but somehow you "know" what it isn't?

Knowledge, strictly defined, is largely unattainable. I seek to hold justified beliefs. Since beliefs are largely developed abductively, they don't entail judging rejected hypotheses to be impossible, as you falsely allege. And to remain rational, I stay open to evidence and argument. But pointing to a past era that isn't explainable by known physics isn't evidence of anything. It's not evidence of gods nor evidence of naturalism. It's consistent with both, so it's moot with regard to developing a world view.

It does seem irrational, however, for a committed theist who believes in a creator, to jump to the conclusion that THIS is the specific thing your god directly created. Your god could have created something prior, or it could gave created something later. So it seems you're jumping to conclusions if you decide your God directly created the universe at a past point that is beyond current physics. Had you been around before general relativity was developed, you logic would have led you to a different point (or perhaps you'd have resorted to an Acquinas "prime mover" rationalization).

We both draw conclusions based on the same evidence and largely abductive reasoning. You however believe that nothing could possibly be different than what is observable now

You're wrong again. Mere possibility doesn't get one very far with abduction. Of course, one would only consider what is logically possible, but then we seek the best explation for available evidence among the possibilities. There's no evidence for unnatural things, so no basis to choose an unnatural solution. That doesn't imply gods are impossible (as you falsely allege I've done) but possibility alone doesn't justify belief.

But I also question how you abductively infer a God exists.

The very essence of scientific thinking is that what we observe may not be all there is? Could there be other laws, more dimensions, other universes that operate in other dimensions. You say no,

Wrong again. Anything's possible, and that's why possibility alone is the weakest possible reason to believe something.

[JehovahsWitness]

... pointing to a past era that isn't explainable by known physics isn't evidence of anything. ..

It's not evidence of ... naturalism. ... so it's moot with regard to developing a world view.

THE GREAT UNCAUSED

... I think the past is finite for philosophical reasons, and this entails an uncaused initial state

Please explain in what sense you use the word "past", I suspect you mean as far back as it is possible to go with known physics, but please correct me if I misunderstand. What are philosophical reasons you alluded to that lead you to pronounced the "past" finite ?



Please explain what you mean by "an uncaused initial state"

I take that to mean something ie " something that existed" , and this thing that existed was in a particular state (condition). If that is not what you meant, please explain.

Whatis this thing you believe was "uncaused" and upon what evidence do you claim anything can be uncaused?


JW

[TRANSPONDER]

... pointing to a past era that isn't explainable by known physics isn't evidence of anything. ..

It's not evidence of ... naturalism. ... so it's moot with regard to developing a world view.

THE GREAT UNCAUSED

... I think the past is finite for philosophical reasons, and this entails an uncaused initial state

Please explain in what sense you use the word "past", I suspect you mean as far back as it is possible to go with known physics, but please correct me if I misunderstand. What are philosophical reasons you alluded to that lead you to pronounced the "past" finite ?



Please explain what you mean by "an uncaused initial state"

I take that to mean something ie " something that existed" , and this thing that existed was in a particular state (condition). If that is not what you meant, please explain.

Whatis this thing you believe was "uncaused" and upon what evidence do you claim anything can be uncaused?


JW

You don't seem to realise that this discussion is a waste of time. It gets you nowhere. Of course i know that people in the Theism debate think it is terribly important but it isn't.

Epistemology and 'how do we know what we know' has been one pillar of the theist -apologetic edifice: if human knowledge can be dismissed as limted, unreliable or mere human opinion, then it can all be dismissed, apparently leaving 'God' as the only possible answer.

That is a rubbish ligical position, but I grant you this; most people don't seem to realise it because they have been spoonfed theistic modes of thinking from birth.

Cultural Christianity, one might say. I was greatly struck by an Original Startrek episode where Kirk is on trial. The lawyer representing Kirk went into a tirade about human law codes, and I noticed he started with the Bible. In a show that was supposed to be based on secularist values and no more superstition, the writers still assumed that the Bible gave the first law codes. In fact the evidence is that it was written up in Babylon perhaps as late as the 5th c BC, and borrowed from the old law codes. Hammurabis' should have been first named (in fact, there were earlier law code). But the Bible is still taught in schools and we don't realise it.