(Part 3) Top products from r/ReasonableFaith

Now I'm no expert on the Kalam but I know there's a two volume series, V1 the philosophical argument and V2 the scientific evidence. (https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-volume-2-9781501352584/)

I believe timeless and immaterial are due to time and matter being created at the big bang. Causeless (I think) is due to the problem of an infinite regress (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0198810334/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_5?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&psc=1).

Personally relate-able (again I'm no expert on this argument) is explained in Reasonable Faith:

>“First, as Richard Swinburne points out [in The Existence of God], there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. For example, if I come into the kitchen and find the kettle boiling, and I ask Jan, “Why is the kettle boiling?” she might answer, “The heat of the flame is being conducted via the copper bottom of the kettle to the water, increasing the kinetic energy of the water molecules, such that they vibrate so violently that they break the surface tension of the water and are thrown off in the form of steam.” Or she might say, “I put it on to make a cup of tea. Would you like some?” The first provides a scientific explanation, the second a personal explanation. Each is a perfectly legitimate form of explanation; indeed, in certain contexts it would be wholly inappropriate to give one rather than the other. Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation. Second, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality. The only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, like numbers. But abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Indeed, their acausal nature is definitive for abstract objects; that is why we call them abstract. Numbers, for example, cannot cause anything. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind. Third, this same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. We’ve concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause. By the nature of the case, that cause cannot have any beginning of its existence or any prior cause. Nor can there have been any changes in this cause, either in its nature or operations, prior to the beginning of the universe. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn’t the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect? One might say that the cause came to exist or changed in some way just prior to the first event. But then the cause’s beginning or changing would be the first event, and we must ask all over again for its cause. And this cannot go on forever, for we know that a beginningless series of events cannot exist. There must be an absolutely first event, before which there was no change, no previous event. We know that this first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why isn’t the effect co-eternal with its cause? To illustrate: Let’s say the cause of water’s freezing is subzero temperatures. If the temperature were eternally below zero degrees Centigrade, then any water around would be eternally frozen. If the cause exists eternally, the effect must also exist eternally. But this seems to imply that if the cause of the universe existed eternally, the universe would also have existed eternally. And this we know to be false. One way to see the difficulty is by reflecting on the different types of causal relations. In event/event causation, one event causes another. For example, the brick’s striking the window pane causes the pane to shatter. This kind of causal relation clearly involves a beginning of the effect in time, since it is a relation between events which occur at specific times. In state/state causation one state of affairs causes another state of affairs to exist. For example, the water’s having a certain surface tension is the cause of the wood’s floating on the water. In this sort of causal relation, the effect need not have a beginning: the wood could theoretically be floating eternally on the water. If the wood begins to float on the water, then this will be a case of event/event causation: the wood’s beginning to float is the result of its being thrown into the water. Now the difficulty that arises in the case of the cause of the beginning of the universe is that we seem to have a peculiar case of state/event causation: the cause is a timeless state but the effect is an event that occurred at a specific moment in the finite past. Such state/event causation doesn’t seem to make sense, since a state sufficient for the existence of its effect should have a state as its effect. There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator. On the basis of a conceptual analysis of the conclusion implied by the kalām cosmological argument, we may therefore infer that a personal Creator of the universe exists, who is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful. This, as Thomas Aquinas was wont to remark, is what everybody means by “God.”

Edit : Sorry for text wall!

[continued]


The most foundational belief in Christianity, and in all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), is that Yahweh/YHWH/YHVH, God, or Allah, is that "God" exists and there is the only one true revealed God (monotheism) - or monotheistic Yahwehism. As this is also the core of the Tanakh (Judaism), Bible (Christianity), and Qur'an/Koran (Islam); questions concerning the source of, and the validity of, this monotheistic Deity belief would raise significant doubt as to the Holy Book's validity as the word of God/Yahweh/Allah and to the very foundation of these belief systems. These core scriptural documents also establish the precept and precedent accepting predecessor society/culture holy scripture and documentation of revealed Yahwehism and integrating and propagating core attributes and beliefs (though with some variation and conflict with peripherals). Yet, within the Holy Scriptures of predecessor Babylonian, Ugarit and Canaanite, and early Israelite religions/societies/cultures, the evidence points to the evolution and growth in the belief of the monothesitic Yahweh Deity from a polytheistic foundation of the El [El Elyon] (the Father God/God Most High) God pantheon. Yahweh (one of many sons of El) was a subordinate fertility/rain/warrior local desert God whom, through a process of convergence, differentiation and displacement (synthesis and syncretism), was elevated from polytheism to henotheism (a monolatry for Yahweh; Yahweh is in charge, there are other Gods to worship) to an aggressive monolatrist polytheistic belief (Yahweh is the most important God, there exists other Gods but worship of these other Gods is to be actively rejected) to, finally, a monotheistic belief system (there is and, somehow, always has been, only Yahweh) as documented in the revealed holy scriptures of these religions and cultures that directly influenced and/or became the Biblical Israelites.

For ones edification, here are some physical archeological and linguistic anthropological evidential sources documenting the development and growth of monotheistic Yahwehism/Allahism from a historical polytheistic foundation of revealed holy scripture to the monotheism of early Biblical Israelites:

• [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel](http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X) by Mark Smith<br />

• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
  Traces of the foundational polytheistic (many many gods, El is in charge) belief, and it's evolution into a man-driven politically and militarily motivated monolatry for Yahweh (Yahweh is in charge, acknowledgement of other gods) to monotheistic Yahwehism (where Yahweh is and, somehow, always been the one and only god “There is no god but Allah”/“You shall have no other gods before Me"), litter the Torah and Old Testament of the Bible which survived editing and redaction. To a lesser extent (as it is based upon already redacted material and with better editing/explicit rationalizations already included) the New Testament and Qur'an also show linkages to this foundational polytheistic belief. Given that the tradition of monotheistic Yahwehism is the essential foundation of the Abrahamic Religions, this falsehood propagates to any/all doctrine/dogma/claims based upon this foundation - rendering these religions, at best, demonstratively invalid; and nominally, morally and culturally reprehensible.
  
  With the dubious claim of monotheistic Yahwehism that the Abrahamic God is based upon, and that serves as the most essential foundation of the Tanakh/Bible/Qur'an narrative, then any claim that the Tanakh/Bible/Qur'an is valid as a source for any "truth" or "knowledge" concerning Yahweh/Allah, and, Jesus the Christ, is at best, highly questionable and suspect, and nominally, completely "non-truthful."
  
  Additionally, presuppositional apologetics, as based upon the Christian God and Christian Faith, and having the position of monotheistic Yahwehism as the source/author of knowledge and the absolute standard for facts/logic/reason/science/morality/etc., is shown to be invalid as a result of the fully dependent, essential, and foundational tenet of monotheistic Yahwehism having been shown to be fallacious, fundamentally flawed and refuted. To argue against, or refute, the position of the fallacy of monotheistic Yahwehism, and to support of presuppositional apologetics, the burden of proof will be to provide credible evidence or proof of the existence of monotheistic Yahweh Deity against the presuppositional position of the null hypothesis {that supernatural deities do not exist} as exemplified by the agnostic atheist baseline position,
  and against the argument against monotheistic Yahwehism via yahweh's polytheistic origin narratives as exemplified by this gnostic atheist held position that was presented above against monotheistic Yahwehism.
  
  -----
  
  So how does the above very long argument do against the use of presuppositional apologetics against the agnostic atheist and the gnostic atheist (who holds a knowledge/evidience based position against monotheistic Yahwehism which undermines the basis for presuppositional apologetics) unbelievers non-believers? [The word "unbelievers" sometimes carries with it the implication that there is something against which to have "not" or "the opposite of" belief. This would represent a strawman position as the baseline atheist position is that there is nothing against which to have belief.]
  

> A bit yeah, just moved in to my own apartment!

congratulations

> I understand the logic, but I still don't think these things have been demonstrated outside of philosophy essays.

Remember, demonstrability is only a qualifier for empirical evidence, evidence in general can be taken to be more vast and up for debate.

> I would disagree, but I don't even know what this means, unfortunately ;)

If you're interested http://www.amazon.com/Immortality-Defended-John-Leslie/dp/140516204X/

I don't think I can do his ideas any justice on a Reddit forum.

> I have heard of this, but I've never talked to anyone who actually held that view. I would like to talk with them about it for sure. I disagree, but on what part I disagree depends on what they say.

Well, if interested, I would suggest Max Tegmark's book Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. He holds that our entire universe is literally made of mathematical numbers. He's also a physicist at MIT.

> Eh. So far as I am aware again, these are akin to borrowing theology's word-games in philosophy to demonstrate different things. I mean, sure, people can think of that if they want, but I don't think it shows anything particularly relevant about reality.

I would think that topics as our eternal destination, the fundamental metaphysical makeup of the world and the nature of reality help to bolster and reinforce scientific theory. I would doubt that many physicists would have stumbled onto space time without previous discussion of philosophy of time for example. Not to mention the ability of certain cosmological arguments to predict notions of a universes beginning. They might not be correct in the long run, but do provide certain hypothetical frames for future discoveries.

> True that, there are also plenty of atheists who are not rationalists at all, and believe all kinds of weird/unprovable things. I would be one of those strict materialists however ;)

Sorry to be pick the knits, but you mean empiricists, not rationalists in this case. Rationalist tends to focus on concepts through the work of a priori knowledge and then place it in an overall framework. The Mathematical and Platonic notions I mentioned are achieved through a rationalist frame work.

Empiricists are more about the posteriori verification of these ideas through induction and falsifiability. This does not preclude empiricists of being Platonists (Arif Ahmed is an example of such a case).

According to the philpapers, skeptical materialists make up only 5% of philosophers. So I would say tread lightly to claim these other 95% are being irrational.

I think you might benefit from reading Against Religion: The Atheist Writings of H. P. Lovecraft, because his views regarding religion - particularly but not exclusively Christianity - are gone into in some detail there.

There are a couple things at work in Lovecraft's world view. The first is that he was a materialist - convinced not only of the impermanence of the body and consciousness, but a firm disbelief in the supernatural of any sort, with organized religion little more than myths and fables to support and encourage morality (which morals he often, but not entirely, agreed with). The scientific discoveries of his age left him in little doubt that humanity was a transient and insignificant feature of the universe at large, and individual humans merest blips in existence.

But that was the cosmic scale of thinking. For the most part he lived his life, did the best he could to enjoy it.

There are good explanations for why thousands of people would testify to miracles in group settings..dealing with basic human psychology, group dynamics, memory contamination, etc. People can whip themselves up into a euphoric frenzy, interpreting mundane events as supernatural ones, especially when "primed" to do so by those surrounding them or a charismatic leader..and the simple act of sharing memories with others can literally alter the memory of your audience. People literally borrow memories from one another without realizing it. For more on this and other strange phenomena about human psychology, check out The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us

As for the question of believing in miracles on the basis of stories, I highly recommend this book which I think makes a very powerful case against believing in things like the resurrection on the basis of testimony. And if Christians do want to believe it after reading this book, they will be forced to accept that they have an inconsistent standard of evidence, since they dismiss claims from competing/incompatible religions that are much better attested and have a much more reliable chain of evidence.

The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright is the best one, though keep in mind it is over 700 pages. It is highly respected and compelling, even among non-Christian, critical Bible scholars.

A completely separate argument (though more easily summarized) is Gary Habermas' "Minimal Fact" argument, where he argues using only historical facts agreed upon nearly unanimously by critical Bible scholars (including skeptics and secular historians.)

A more general book about the historical reliability of the Gospel narratives is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Keep in mind this is also lengthy and academic in nature.

The best summary of these arguments I've come across is in chapters 7 and 13 of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. This is the book that turned my faith around. He's also great at citations and includes a very helpful annotated bibliography.

TL;DR - Everyone should read The Reason for God by Tim Keller.

No translation can be perfect, and scholarly works dealing with biblical texts will often adapt their chosen translation as needed, if not translate everything afresh. That said, most experts consider the New Revised Standard Version to be the most accurate translation overall. The New Oxford Annotated Bible and the HarperCollins Study Bible augment this translation with excellent notes and introductions based on the latest scholarship.

Another translation of similar high quality, though often overlooked, is the New American Bible, Revised Edition. All editions of this translation include the same notes (which the copyright holder will not allow to be omitted), including online versions.

If the meaning of a particular verse is in question, it may be helpful to consult the New English Translation (NET) Bible, which features extensive, detailed notes explaining the translators' choices, with references to relevant scholarly literature.

A word of caution about one highly popular translation: the New International Version contains numerous highly questionable translation choices with no basis in the text in order to smooth over difficulties for Evangelical doctrine. My favourite example, until it was taken out in a recent revision, was the verse where Jesus calls the mustard grain "the smallest of all seeds," which the NIV rendered "the smallest of all your seeds" to make Jesus imply that he knows better due to divine knowledge of botany. Others would include the softening of a comparison between man and other animals in Ecclesiastes 3:18, presumably to exorcise the spectre of Darwinism; 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Kings 4:26 are quietly made to match up with other parts of the Bible; and the terrible prospect of salvation after death is eliminated from 1 Peter 4:6 with language that makes clear that when the author wrote that the gospel was preached "even to the dead," he really meant that even some people who are now dead heard the gospel while they were alive. There's a lot of subtle monkey business with the vocabulary to preempt non-Evangelical interpretations. The same Greek word is correctly translated "tradition" wherever it appears in a negative context, but "teaching" wherever it appears in a positive context. Similarly, the doctrine of justification by faith alone is shored up by translating the same word "works" wherever it appears in a negative context and "deeds" wherever it appears in a positive context. Many more examples could be cited.

You said….

>It makes no sense to demand causation outside of spacetime.

And then….

> I guess someone should tell all those physicists to stop wasting their time.

The second statement appears to follow from the first.


>In what conceivable way has quantum gravity been disqualified?


Can you explain (like I’m a 4-yr-old) what you mean by quantum gravity in regards to the origin of the universe? Is this the theory where the origin of the universe is a freak quantum fluctuation?


>String theory isn't even testable yet, and somehow one of the most active areas of research in theoretical physics is just ruled out?!


I don’t know much about this theory, but it’s not falsifiable which means it takes faith to believe it. Plus this doesn’t answer the questions on where the branes came from. You still end up with an infinite regress of causes, which is impossible. If you can accept a non-falsifiable claim, then you may want to re-examine your motives for not believing in God since string theory is merely replacement theology.


>Oh yeah, and eternal inflation hasn't been "debunked" either, but whatever.


Yeah, it has. BGV did this.


>Not only do BGV leave room for an eternal universe (which is a common view among cosmologists)


Not for our universe or any other expanding universe. Vilenkin subscribes to the multi-verse theory where we are a freak quantum fluctuation. The irony is that the laws of physics that describe our universe have to pre-exist the formation of the universe in order for the universe to form at all. How do you have laws of physics in place before the origin of the universe? How do you have gravity with no mass?


Let’s say the multi-verse is full of quantum foam for creating other universes. Then it becomes a literal Hilbert’s Hotel since in an infinite amount time a universe will form in an infinite number of locations and still have room for more universes. The multi-verse concept when carried out to its logical conclusion becomes absurd.


>Vilenkin's own work describes the universe beginning by way of uncaused quantum tunnelling... how's that for inconvenient?


Are you sure it’s uncaused or is it indeterminate? A source would help, because I don’t think anyone is pursuing a causeless origin. If there was no cause, then how can there be an explanation? Only those who believe the anthropic principle is adequate say “we’re here, so why ask?”.

There was never a period of time where genesis (bereshith) was taken literally. There was always two accounts of creation. The written allegorical account, and maaseh bereshith, literally the way of creation. What actually happened. The rambam stated that maaseh bereshith means physics, and notes the lack of controversy about that. Every ancient commentary on the genesis follows a physical, nonmystical account, that seems to be frighteningly accurate. This is my favorite quote of Nachmanides teaching in the 13th century.

> At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.

I highly recommend a very thin, very cheap book, Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Schroeder. This was written by a physicist and explains the account of genesis in light of modern science, and using only ancient commentary. He does this to demonstrate that it is not science influencing theology, but rather theology predicting science.

I would read this if you get a chance

https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098

Warranted Christian Belief, The first Two Chapters in Reasonable Faith and if one wants clarification either Q and A on reasonable faith or the commentary on the Q and A in Reasonable Response.

While Craig and Plantinga hold to versions of Reformed epistemology, another Christian respected by both doesn't hold to Reformed Epistemology but is a Foundationalist and holds to internalism(Tim McGrew). Will be coming up with links soon.

http://www.amazon.com/Internalism-Epistemology-The-Architecture-Reason/dp/0415591589/ref=pd_ybh_5
http://www.amazon.com/The-Foundations-Knowledge-Timothy-McGrew/dp/0822630435/ref=pd_ybh_6
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/pojman.htm

I'm on my way reading through Warranted Christian Belief and have already read "Where the Conflict Lies" and Reasonable Faith.

I recommend the Cultural Background Study Bible and Exploring my Strange Bible podcast and The Bible Project YouTube channel

I don't know about a video, but there's a book they did together that I think is based on their debate.

https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-God-Alvin-Plantinga-dp-0631193642/dp/0631193642/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1569421605

This.