"Christianity is Reasonable/Rational"

[POI]

Christians, please name the reason(s) you became a Christian. I'm not asking or requesting that you give long stories, but that you instead cut to the chase, for sake in brevity Please then explain why these reason(s) are reasonable/rational?

For debate:

1) Please give the reason(s) you are a Christian
2) Please explain why these reason(s) are reasonable/rational
** Please be prepared to possibly have your reasoning challenged **

[1213]

1) Any other holy book doesn't seem to have message to me.

2) I wouldn't keep any other god as my God, even if they would exist, because Bible God has shown greater wisdom, love and righteousness than them.

1) Have you tried them ALL? Or maybe there's some where such a god may never have communicated with humans, for whatever reason(s)? No need to answer. The answer is no. So your response makes little/no sense.

2) How could you know your god shows the most wisdom, when there is no way you explored all avenues? You can't... Hence, you are appealing to "faith" alone.... And 'faith' can be applied to any unfalsifiable claim...

I don't appeal "faith" alone. I know that the other alleged gods, which many may be only your imagination, have not shown any wisdom to me. If there is some other god and he doesn't care to show his wisdom to me, why would I care about him and keep him as my god?

If you believe Genesis is literal, does this mean you are forced to reject "science'? If not, how do you get the two to work together?

It means I can reject pseudoscience. Real science is ok, I don't have any reason to reject data that is acquired by scientific method and is testable and provable.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

You are mistaken, even though I pointed out exactly why. You did not address anything I said, which was to be expected.

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Now, look how the following doesn't fit into that definition. It is not assuming God as the explanation of an unknown phenomenon. If I said, look, we cannot explain consciousness, so God causes consciousness, then that would be God of the gaps. That would be arguing from ignorance. We are ignorant of X thus Y.

However, what I said is not arguing from ignorance. It is arguing for the best explanation. The difference should be clear.

1. PSR - things that exist will have an explanation for why they exist.
2. Awareness exists.
3. There are different attempts to explain how awareness exists.
4. There are natural metaphysics that claim awareness is an emergent property without explaining why it ought to emerge.
5. There are metaphysical arguments that do explain how awareness exists in the world, such as panpsychism.
6. Those metaphysics that offer an explanation for how awareness exists in the world are better than those that fail offer any explanation.
7. The best explanations are those metaphysical theories that offer an explanation for why and how awareness is in the world.
8. Thus natural metaphysics is not the best explanation.

I could then run another argument from best explanation as to which metaphysics is best of those that offer an explanation to why and how awareness is in the world. Which will be the one that terminates at the purely actual actualizer.

I then could run another argument as to how the purely actual actualizer is omniscient, omnipresent, timeless, immutable, divinely simple, etc.

I could then run a few different arguments as to why this God best fits Christianity, specifically Catholicsm. But for now...

Now that it is so clearly laid out before you, explain how the above argument is an argument from ignorance. You should take notice that the argument in no way claims (8) the conclusion is true because it cannot be proven false.

[brunumb]

1) The Bible is my main reason.

How did you rule out every other claimed holy book? Or maybe a god(s) exist(s), which did not inspire any book at all? Such a God would know languages change/die, and many would translate it incorrectly -- (even if they are believers)?

Any other holy book doesn't seem to have message to me.

Which other holy books have you studied?

If they would have a message for me, wouldn't they be given to me? If no one gives a book for me, I don't think it is for me. Interestingly Bible God seems to be the only one who wanted me to have his message. And I live very far from the place where the Biblical events took place.

So you didn't study any other holy books but you know they have no message for you. Wow. To me it seems that you are dismissing them all without justification just to prop up your belief of choice. That is what happens when people are indoctrinated with their religious beliefs and then do whatever they can to try and retrofit some sort of rationalisation. To me that comes across quite clearly in most of your posts.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

You are mistaken, even though I pointed out exactly why. You did not address anything I said, which was to be expected.

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Now, look how the following doesn't fit into that definition. It is not assuming God as the explanation of an unknown phenomenon. If I said, look, we cannot explain consciousness, so God causes consciousness, then that would be God of the gaps. That would be arguing from ignorance. We are ignorant of X thus Y.

However, what I said is not arguing from ignorance. It is arguing for the best explanation. The difference should be clear.

1. PSR - things that exist will have an explanation for why they exist.
2. Awareness exists.
3. There are different attempts to explain how awareness exists.
4. There are natural metaphysics that claim awareness is an emergent property without explaining why it ought to emerge.
5. There are metaphysical arguments that do explain how awareness exists in the world, such as panpsychism.
6. Those metaphysics that offer an explanation for how awareness exists in the world are better than those that fail offer any explanation.
7. The best explanations are those metaphysical theories that offer an explanation for why and how awareness is in the world.
8. Thus natural metaphysics is not the best explanation.

I could then run another argument from best explanation as to which metaphysics is best of those that offer an explanation to why and how awareness is in the world. Which will be the one that terminates at the purely actual actualizer.

I then could run another argument as to how the purely actual actualizer is omniscient, omnipresent, timeless, immutable, divinely simple, etc.

I could then run a few different arguments as to why this God best fits Christianity, specifically Catholicsm. But for now...

Now that it is so clearly laid out before you, explain how the above argument is an argument from ignorance. You should take notice that the argument in no way claims (8) the conclusion is true because it cannot be proven false.

No. It is still God of the Gaps. You are merely taking the Unexplained, in this case 'consciousness', and putting God in there as a 'explanation', though it doesn't explain anything; God just dunnit. Now, sure, you do some philosophical waffle about emergent qualities (on a former board, a Christian used to sneer at what he called my use of 'emergent qualities' to explain consciousness, but you are using them to make God the most likely explanation). Do you see how whatever is suggested as how consciousness happens, the Faithful can ascribe it to 'must me God'? That is the God of Gaps, no matter what hats it is putting on.

Let me tell you how I see Consciousness as biological in origin. Hypothesis, but with evolutionary evidence in there which of course, you ignore. Chemical evolution, which is now shown to a result of innate physical properties (Thermo 2 guarantees ordered complexity) molecules work and react and combine. This is stuff happening without thought but in accordance with physical laws that work and the ones that don't work, vanish. Evolution, but not biology - yet. Given a chemical chowder on the Archon earth and the RNA just once doing replication, you have the basic of biology - reproduction. Eventually, (2 billion years, I think it was) we have cells and groups of cells. They react almost chemically in absorbing nutrients. They react instinctively, without thinking. The same when animal cells start to eat plant cells and the evolutionary arms race kicks off. This whole instinctive reaction based on natural selection develops along with more complex and adapted - to - survive forms (1) and the biochemical instinctive reaction also becomes more complex and adapted and we see it as close to awareness.

When the next adaptation was co-operation, the pack society and like this, dislike that, fear this, go for that, which is adapted instinct, and you have the start of awareness and even morality. In the smarter animals this looks at least like the 'consciousness' that humans have and the only 'Gap' I can see here is how much more developed human reasoning and tool -making is. I see no real reason to appeal to interference form space pilots or a god, but the 'Gap' is there...This is why, A4G, chum, you will not sell me Goddunnit through metaphysical mumbo when I can see an evidentially clear evolution of consciousness, awareness, society and morals through biological evolution, and there is no need whatsoever to pop a god (name your own) in there.

(1) incorrect use of hyphens, Brunum? Really?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34]

Alright, lol. I guess I will leave it to the intelligence readers to see that you cannot tell the difference between an argument for the best explanation vs God of the gaps.

But do me a favor and ask a logician what the difference is.

[Purple Knight]

So what are the consequences for cheating? In this world, none, unless you happened to have been breaking the law. In the world to come it depends on you. If you desire to live eternity in the presence of perfect and overwhelming love then yes, your sins could be forgiven. If you desire to live apart from that love the choice is yours but you would truly feel as though you were in Gehenna. But the thing to remember, there is no cheating your way into heaven.

If everyone around you believes this, then there is no reason to waste energy rooting out cheaters because you won't have any.

Of course they would because human beings have been given the freedom to do any and all evil. It is only when we have the freedom to do evil that we have the freedom to reject that evil and do good. In every moment of history there have always been you backstabbers and cheaters. Yes, if they did live in true love with God and their fellowman then yes, we would have a perfect society. But that is not going to happen in this world but the next.

It's a lot more likely to happen if you think there are ultimate consequences.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34]

Alright, lol. I guess I will leave it to the intelligence readers to see that you cannot tell the difference between an argument for the best explanation vs God of the gaps.

But do me a favor and ask a logician what the difference is.

I understand the difference very well. I also understand that you were using 'best explanation' (it wasn't) to validate a god of the gaps' argument.

[DaveD49]

So what are the consequences for cheating? In this world, none, unless you happened to have been breaking the law. In the world to come it depends on you. If you desire to live eternity in the presence of perfect and overwhelming love then yes, your sins could be forgiven. If you desire to live apart from that love the choice is yours but you would truly feel as though you were in Gehenna. But the thing to remember, there is no cheating your way into heaven.

If everyone around you believes this, then there is no reason to waste energy rooting out cheaters because you won't have any.

Of course they would because human beings have been given the freedom to do any and all evil. It is only when we have the freedom to do evil that we have the freedom to reject that evil and do good. In every moment of history there have always been you backstabbers and cheaters. Yes, if they did live in true love with God and their fellowman then yes, we would have a perfect society. But that is not going to happen in this world but the next.

It's a lot more likely to happen if you think there are ultimate consequences.

Perhaps. Isn't that what human laws do? I sincerely believe that we should do good not because we "have to" but rather because we want to. If someone does good because they expect a heavenly reward or fear punishment isn't that acting by ulterior motivation? If that is true then they have not done good at all but rather acted for selfish reasons. To have a "perfect" society there should be no reason for "laws" because everyone behaves properly. That is not going to happen in this world. But we should strive to come as close as we can.

[POI]

I don't appeal "faith" alone. I know that the other alleged gods, which many may be only your imagination, have not shown any wisdom to me. If there is some other god and he doesn't care to show his wisdom to me, why would I care about him and keep him as my god?

You are demonstrating nothing but 'faith'. You have not explored all claims, thus, you would/could not know.

It means I can reject pseudoscience. Real science is ok, I don't have any reason to reject data that is acquired by scientific method and is testable and provable.

Interesting... Please list a scientific claim, which is deemed under "pseudoscience"?

[1213]

You are demonstrating nothing but 'faith'. You have not explored all claims, thus, you would/could not know.

I have explored enough to know what the others don't have.