"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 **

[Purple Knight]

That is absolutely true, there will always be people who cheat who in a sense ruin it for everyone else. Does that mean that we should do the same the "just to get by"? Absolutely not.

Of course we shouldn't but if everyone does, we have to also.

It has been a while since I last saw "Shawshank Redemption" so I forget who the character "Wild Billy" was. (Was he the young guy who said he heard a guy confess to the crime that the main character supposedly committed?} But there is no way anyone can "force" any person to do good or evil. Even threating to kill someone does not work because they always have the choice to let themselves be killed but not do what they were told to do. Rudyard Kipling's Poem "If__" seems appropriate because it points up what it necessary for anyone to become an adult man (or woman):

Okay, I confused two similar movies. I meant The Green Mile. I had a stupid moment lol. Wild Billy was a psycho who killed and raped two little girls because he could, and someone else was punished for it. You can't get rid of all of these people but you can get rid of or punish enough of them so we don't have an entirely evil world. Then, people can choose good and not immediately be taken advantage of or die. If people don't have that option you can't expect a lot of them to choose good. They still should, but you can't expect it. A 100% evil world will generate about 99.99% evil people. If people will be taken advantage of sometimes, but not always, then you can still expect good.

I really like that poem and am glad to be reminded of it. But it is at times an exaggeration. Nobody can trust themselves if literally everyone else says something they believe is nonsense. It's called being crazy, and if you're crazy then you change your view. We do need to deal with doubt in a healthy way which is reevaluate rationally. But if we come to the conclusion that there is really a pink elephant in the room, the rational person can see that his perception is wrong. I think that's what the poem means but that one line is a blatant hyperbole. If you are the only one who thinks there's a pink elephant there, you're wrong.

[DaveD49]

That is absolutely true, there will always be people who cheat who in a sense ruin it for everyone else. Does that mean that we should do the same the "just to get by"? Absolutely not.

Of course we shouldn't but if everyone does, we have to also.

It has been a while since I last saw "Shawshank Redemption" so I forget who the character "Wild Billy" was. (Was he the young guy who said he heard a guy confess to the crime that the main character supposedly committed?} But there is no way anyone can "force" any person to do good or evil. Even threating to kill someone does not work because they always have the choice to let themselves be killed but not do what they were told to do. Rudyard Kipling's Poem "If__" seems appropriate because it points up what it necessary for anyone to become an adult man (or woman):

Okay, I confused two similar movies. I meant The Green Mile. I had a stupid moment lol. Wild Billy was a psycho who killed and raped two little girls because he could, and someone else was punished for it. You can't get rid of all of these people but you can get rid of or punish enough of them so we don't have an entirely evil world. Then, people can choose good and not immediately be taken advantage of or die. If people don't have that option you can't expect a lot of them to choose good. They still should, but you can't expect it. A 100% evil world will generate about 99.99% evil people. If people will be taken advantage of sometimes, but not always, then you can still expect good.

I really like that poem and am glad to be reminded of it. But it is at times an exaggeration. Nobody can trust themselves if literally everyone else says something they believe is nonsense. It's called being crazy, and if you're crazy then you change your view. We do need to deal with doubt in a healthy way which is reevaluate rationally. But if we come to the conclusion that there is really a pink elephant in the room, the rational person can see that his perception is wrong. I think that's what the poem means but that one line is a blatant hyperbole. If you are the only one who thinks there's a pink elephant there, you're wrong.

But that is exactly my point. People ALWAYS have the option of acting differently from the crowds. Certainly inner city kids can feel pressured to join a gang because they are afraid, but I think that the same number, if not more, inner city kids walk away from such invitations. I doubt very much that many people cave in on their strong beliefs because people call them "crazy". Yes, plenty of people did give in to when religion was spread by the sword, but in most cases their faith was not really strong. But no matter what the circumstances we are given two free and clear choices: to do any and all evil or to reject that evil and to do good. I am reminded of the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe (now considered a Saint) who took the place of another prisoner scheduled to be starved to death with 9 others because another prisoner had escaped from Auschwitz. He could have kept his mouth shut and just let the man die, but he didn't. Sometimes it takes raw courage to stand up to evil and to do good.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

You still failed to show where God is mentioned or implied in my argument. There are panpsychic metaphysical models that do not have God in their ontology.

My argument allows for a no God panpsychic model, thus cannot be a God of the gaps argument. At best, you will have to demonstrate why it is an argument from ignorance, which I have shown the form to be other than.

It is a 'gap for god' fallacy to say that 'naturalism has no explanation, so god is the best explanation', It isn't, just as rain or hosepipe is the best explanation and a god isn't and we know about brain activity and animal awareness so that is the go - to explanation and God isn't. Even though there is a lot we don't know.

This is why 'consciousness still is a bit of a gap for God, like Life and cosmic origins, but God is never the 'go - to ' explanation and the material default obtains. We know the material world works without the need for a god. Goddunnit is never the 'best explanation'.

My argument doesn't say naturalism has no explanation so God is the best explanation. Can you show where that is stated or even implied in any of the 7 premises or the conclusion?

BTW, brain activity doesn't do anything to explain why awareness exists, and it doesn't explain how it exists starting from whatever fundamental properties you think exist in the world. Remember how I showed based on fundamental properties, I logically derived the line, and triangle, and square, etc? Naturalists have done nothing like that for how awareness logically comes to exist.

Do you think brains a fundamental properties it the world or are they composites?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

You still failed to show where God is mentioned or implied in my argument. There are panpsychic metaphysical models that do not have God in their ontology.

My argument allows for a no God panpsychic model, thus cannot be a God of the gaps argument. At best, you will have to demonstrate why it is an argument from ignorance, which I have shown the form to be other than.

It is a 'gap for god' fallacy to say that 'naturalism has no explanation, so god is the best explanation', It isn't, just as rain or hosepipe is the best explanation and a god isn't and we know about brain activity and animal awareness so that is the go - to explanation and God isn't. Even though there is a lot we don't know.

This is why 'consciousness still is a bit of a gap for God, like Life and cosmic origins, but God is never the 'go - to ' explanation and the material default obtains. We know the material world works without the need for a god. Goddunnit is never the 'best explanation'.

My argument doesn't say naturalism has no explanation so God is the best explanation. Can you show where that is stated or even implied in any of the 7 premises or the conclusion?

Here: "6. Those metaphysics that offer an explanation for how awareness exists in the world are better than those that fail to offer any explanation."

Please don't try the 'I didn't use those words' ploy. You are saying here that Naturalism doesn't have an explanation so the 'panpsychic' or supernatural argument which of course covers 'god' and is of course the gap for god argument, is the default hypothesis. It isn't. You are taking a known logical fallacy and pretend that it is valid evidence for the 'panpsyclical, supernatural or God, which we all know is what you think). And you are being tricky, evasive and dishonest (1) in trying to argue that isn't a 'gap for God' argument because it doesn't have to claim that God is the explanation (though nobody is fooled that God is not what you have in mind).

BTW, brain activity doesn't do anything to explain why awareness exists, and it doesn't explain how it exists starting from whatever fundamental properties you think exist in the world. Remember how I showed based on fundamental properties, I logically derived the line, and triangle, and square, etc? Naturalists have done nothing like that for how awareness logically comes to exist.

Do you think brains a fundamental properties it the world or are they composites?

I did indeed read the irrelevant trash that you posted. Did you read the relevant evolutionary evidence that reaction, instinct, awareness and consciousness (and problem solving) evolved, and there is no evidence that it was 'created'. Your futile demands that naturalism explains everything now or confess that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour are a waste of your manicure, as without any real argument for a god (or space aliens or whatever "panpsychic metaphysical models" is supposed to mean, though we all know that God is what you believe) material naturalism, which we know exists and much of how it works, IS the default theory, even if there are many unexplained gaps, and the supernatural 'gap for god' is not. Your arguments are not logic, they are Theistic sophistry and flawed and intellectually dishonest from the start. They can never be logically sound, because they begin with an assumption that God (disquised as "panpsychic metaphysical models" in hopes to fool us) is the default hypothesis.
(1) or you could plead that you didn't know any better and needed some instruction.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]

Here: "6. Those metaphysics that offer an explanation for how awareness exists in the world are better than those that fail to offer any explanation."

Please don't try the 'I didn't use those words' ploy. You are saying here that Naturalism doesn't have an explanation so the 'panpsychic' or supernatural argument which of course covers 'god' and is of course the gap for god argument, is the default hypothesis. It isn't. You are taking a known logical fallacy and pretend that it is valid evidence for the 'panpsyclical, supernatural or God, which we all know is what you think). And you are being tricky, evasive and dishonest (1) in trying to argue that isn't a 'gap for God' argument because it doesn't have to claim that God is the explanation (though nobody is fooled that God is not what you have in mind).

No. My argument is only doing what it is doing and nothing more. Once we get to naturalism fails, then we can look into the alternatives, of which there are many, and some of which are without God.

It doesn't matter if I think God exists or not. That has no barring on what the argument says and does. This itself a strawman. You are setting up an argument I am not making and tearing it down. Just deal with the argument itself.

And it is a The Tu Quoque Fallacy because instead of addressing my argument, you say, I believe in God as if that somehow addresses my argument.

and you are guilty of the Genetic fallacy. You are claiming that because I believe in God, my argument must point to God, when in fact it doesn't necessarily point to God. It can point to panpsychism without God.

What it does point to is that natural metaphysics lacks an explanation for awareness.

and you are attributing a false intention that is not in the argument.

Your futile demands that naturalism explains everything now or confess that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour are a waste of your manicure,

Another strawman because I never said anything about confessing Jesus or believing in Jesus or even in God. The argument in discussion right now has several options that offer explanations for why and how awareness exists in our world. Some of those best explanations are without God, so I cannot be arguing for God, not with this argument.

What someone familiar with debating arguments would do is disagree with one of the premises and explain why. Or they might show why even if the premises are true the conclusion doesn't follow. Why not try that?

as without any real argument for a god (or space aliens or whatever "panpsychic metaphysical models" is supposed to mean, though we all know that God is what you believe

Panpyschism is the belief that consciousness is a property in the world and not something that emerges from matter. A metaphysical model that includes in its ontology consciousness as a property, will not necessarily include God. In other words, just because someone is a panpsychist doesn't mean they are a theist.

material naturalism, which we know exists and much of how it works, IS the default theory, even if there are many unexplained gaps, and the supernatural 'gap for god' is not.

No, materialism is not the default theory. And no, we do not know matter exists. Look into process philosophy, taken seriously by some modern philosophers. Or check out digital physics taken seriously by some modern physicists.

Actually, this can be a good topic in itself. What is material exactly that makes it unique unto itself?

Your arguments are not logic, they are Theistic sophistry and flawed and intellectually dishonest from the start.

Even if this were true, it would not prevent you from showing how my argument is flawed. Show how the conclusion cannot follow from the premises. Or show how one of my premises contradicts another. Or maybe just attack the soundness of the argument and disagree with one of the premises and why.

They can never be logically sound, because they begin with an assumption that God (disquised as "panpsychic metaphysical models" in hopes to fool us) is the default hypothesis.

Another strawman. One can be a panpsychist atheist. In fact, I know one that is a regular on Paltalk in a room I admin. He can offer the same argument I did and agree with it, yet he is an atheist.

(1) or you could plead that you didn't know any better and needed some instruction.

Call it what you wish. I would like you to do so by showing either how my conclusion doesn't follow the premises, or how my premises contradict, or just disagree with one of the premises and explain why. If you do only the latter, then you are not showing the argument is invalid. You would only be questioning the soundness of it.

It would be very simple to show it is invalid if it is. Just explain how if the premises are true, the conclusion doesn't follow. Or show a contradiction between premises.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #55]

No, no no, no ,no... I'm not even going to bother as you are being tricky and evasive. Naturaiism doesn't fail because it exists and is the go - to explanation for what is not yet explained. The metaphysical or supernatural (including a god) is logically, not.

And your various 'I did not say that' ploys when anyone with a modicum of nous would have seen that I was not quoting you, but looking ironically at was was really going on, despite you pretending that it is an argument with impartial philosophy fail; it isn't, and you know it isn't. Nail this to your wall and memorize it; argument from 'Consciousness' is a gap for god fallacy (1) . Like argument from morality, numbers of believers, how many Bibles have been printed or all the ontological arguments.

(1) with various arguments to try put meat on the wire figure of the faithclaim being attempts to make the 'panphysical' which everyone including you knows is 'Aka God')to make it the 'best explanation' are a different argument from the gap for god faithclaim. Job done.

[1213]

For example, the idea that all species have evolved from single species as evolution theorists believe is pseudoscience.

Okay, so you deem evolutionary biology as 'pseudoscience." How about earth science, geology, archeology, astronomy, and cosmology? Are they pseudoscience too? Because if you read Genesis as literal, seems as though you have to reject an awful lot of 'science'?

If science means what I said before, observable and testable information, what science is in contradiction with the Bible? One example is enough. And please give the best example you know.

[TRANSPONDER]

For example, the idea that all species have evolved from single species as evolution theorists believe is pseudoscience.

Okay, so you deem evolutionary biology as 'pseudoscience." How about earth science, geology, archeology, astronomy, and cosmology? Are they pseudoscience too? Because if you read Genesis as literal, seems as though you have to reject an awful lot of 'science'?

If science means what I said before, observable and testable information, what science is in contradiction with the Bible? One example is enough. And please give the best example you know.

I can just see what's coming "That's your best example?" Well it doesn't convince me, thus, the Bible wins, God, Jesus and Christianity win and atheism loses". Yeah. Nevertheless, I'll give you what I reckon are the best cases from OT(Bible reliability) and New T (Gospel reliability). Not that you haven't seen them before

The sun and moon were not made after the veg. and fruit. And a mobile star that 'goes before' anyone coming from the east, hangs around like a bike chained to Herod's bike rack while the magi asked him for directions and then hovered over a particular house, (which would be tricky identification even if it was only 100 ft up) is not scientifically credible.

Okay let's have it.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #55]

No, no no, no ,no... I'm not even going to bother as you are being tricky and evasive. Naturaiism doesn't fail because it exists and is the go - to explanation for what is not yet explained. The metaphysical or supernatural (including a god) is logically, not.

And your various 'I did not say that' ploys when anyone with a modicum of nous would have seen that I was not quoting you, but looking ironically at was was really going on, despite you pretending that it is an argument with impartial philosophy fail; it isn't, and you know it isn't. Nail this to your wall and memorize it; argument from 'Consciousness' is a gap for god fallacy (1) . Like argument from morality, numbers of believers, how many Bibles have been printed or all the ontological arguments.

(1) with various arguments to try put meat on the wire figure of the faithclaim being attempts to make the 'panphysical' which everyone including you knows is 'Aka God')to make it the 'best explanation' are a different argument from the gap for god faithclaim. Job done.

So still you cannot show you are able to dismantle my argument by showing the conclusion doesn't follow the premises or that the premises contradict each other. Thus you did nothing to show my argument is invalid. You could have still challenged the soundness of it, but you did not do that either, which is very simple to do. Just state which premises you disagree with and why. You sort of do that without doing it by saying naturalism doesn't fail, if by that you mean natural metaphysics, which I doubt you do.

But, please do make the positive argument from naturalism and how it accounts for awareness. I will be glad to see if I can tear it down.

Then you resort to basically lying because you have been shown to be utterly wrong claiming that my argument is an argument of the gaps. It is silly really at this point. If I present my argument to a logician and your response that it is a God of the gaps argument, and he/she points out how horribly wrong you are, will you see the error of your ways, or will you then claim the logician is also wrong?

Then you make another error again, even though you were corrected several times. How do you keep making the same errors? Do you honestly not see how utterly wrong you are?

It is panpsychism, tbw, not panphsical. Panpsychism does NOT entail God, yet you keep claiming it does. I know atheists that are panpsychist.

Just look at how wrong you are.

However, unlike many of their historical forebears, most contemporary panpsychists construe panpsychism in a purely naturalistic fashion. That is, the explicandum for panpsychists is not God or any religious unity, but (primarily) the human mind and subjective awareness. https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... awareness.

If you still cannot admit the errors you are making, then I don't know what is wrong. I am sure most readings will see your errors, though. I suppose that is the only reason I am still responding.

[POI]

For example, the idea that all species have evolved from single species as evolution theorists believe is pseudoscience.

Okay, so you deem evolutionary biology as 'pseudoscience." How about earth science, geology, archeology, astronomy, and cosmology? Are they pseudoscience too? Because if you read Genesis as literal, seems as though you have to reject an awful lot of 'science'?

If science means what I said before, observable and testable information, what science is in contradiction with the Bible? One example is enough. And please give the best example you know.

Well, you believe in a literal global flood, and that the earth is ~6K years old. You would have to collectively reject all the sciences I mentioned prior, to retain this conclusion. So do you?