Are there any philosophical arguments for Christianity, such as arguments that make the leap from the unmoved mover to "The Triune God is this un...

Are there any philosophical arguments for Christianity, such as arguments that make the leap from the unmoved mover to "The Triune God is this unmoved mover and this is how you worship him"?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Besides divine revelation, there is also the necessity for Hod to be a personal God who enacts a providential plan based on His good will. Without such a will, things do not begin to happen. There is also the problem of evil which is unexplained without a redeeming God.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >a personal God who enacts a providential plan based on His good will
      How is this specific to Christianity though?

      >There is also the problem of evil which is unexplained without a redeeming God.
      To me this implies universalism, because if God doesn't redeem everyone then the problem of evil hasn't been solved. If redeeming is the only way to solve evil, and God doesn't redeem everyone, then the problem hasn't been solved in totality.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >How is this specific to Christianity though?
        At minimum it implies monotheism where an omniscient God carries forward an infallible plan.

        >If redeeming is the only way to solve evil, and God doesn't redeem everyone, then the problem hasn't been solved in totality.
        It's not the only way to solve evil. The other half is retributive justice. If God redeems everyone that could be redeemed and punishes the remainder, the problem of evil has been solved in totality.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >At minimum it implies monotheism where an omniscient God carries forward an infallible plan.
          That's my original question. How do you go from this God to the specifics of Christianity such as He's Triune, He established this church, These books are the canon, etc?

          >It's not the only way to solve evil.
          >There is also the problem of evil which is unexplained without a redeeming God.
          So the problem is explainable without a redeeming God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Montheism kind of narrows it down. Do you know how many religions believe in a non-Abrahamic monotheistic, loving God?

            >So the problem is explainable without a redeeming God.
            No, because without a redeeming God, there is no redemption nor eternal punishment.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, because without a redeeming God, there is no redemption nor eternal punishment.
            Hinduism has it be mostly-passive cosmological functions. You don't need discrete actors in your metaphysics, it's fine for shit to "just happen". Biggest issue with SO many Christian arguments is piling all sorts of weird shit, like the barely-if-at-all logically coherent Trinity, onto the First Cause in pursuit of who can burrow furthest up their own ass in the ivory tower. Christian autism is so bad it literally invented orthodoxy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Hinduism has it be mostly-passive cosmological functions.
            That's not a loving monotheistic God. The rest of what you typed is ad hominem.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Setting aside how Brahmin ≈ YHVH is a thing when comparing the moral imperatives, even in a truly monotheistic system the three-Os requirement of the Problem is not a requirement for monotheism. One can have a First Cause sole deity in a priviledged position that is none of all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-loving, and it is ONLY when all three are the case that the incredibly complex and possibly unsolvable logical problem emerges.

            Pic related, leaving the flow chart takes some very dubious leaps to anyone not already neck-deep in the theology as a devout believer.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem of evil is only a problem for the unbeliever, since within the framework of the unbeliever's worldview, evil does not exist. Therefore the apparent existence of evil poses a problem for which he cannot account. The flowchart you posted simply assumes the definition of "evil" as including things like natural disasters and disease which men colloquially call evil but are not actual moral evils. It also disregards the possibility that God might have a just reason for allowing evil to exist for a time before exacting punishment. At the end of time, there will be no evil, and the flowchart will no longer apply, since the "problem" of evil will be solved at that future date.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >since within the framework of the unbeliever's worldview, evil does not exist
            Do you seriously think Epicurious did not believe "Evil" was a real thing? That the pagans who brought the argument up to the early Church Fathers did not believe in it? That the post-Reformation thinkers trotting it out anew to bludgeon the absurdities of Catholicism did not? No, they simply held that "evil" was violation of actual principals more than anything to do with deities, because beliefs in the divine varied and so that COULD NOT work as the standard

            >The flowchart you posted simply assumes the definition of "evil" as including things like natural disasters and disease which men colloquially call evil but are not actual moral evils.
            No, it assumes that God does not want moral evils to be a thing, which is the position of virtually every Christian sect. Indeed, most define "evil" explicitly in terms of "what God does not want". Upon which the total lack of limits creates a paradox. Epicurus was centuries before Christ, arguing against the idea of a three-Os God long before it got any traction

            >It also disregards the possibility that God might have a just reason for allowing evil to exist for a time
            Again, total lack of limits, there is absolutely no compromise He could ever need to make because even the most utterly absurd things are trivial, including what are to us logical contradictions because He literally defined what logic was as the limitless First Cause, and cannot make mistakes. Anything He actively wished not to be at the start therefore never can

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it assumes that God does not want moral evils to be a thing,
            Then it's dumb because it should be blatantly obvious why God allows humans to choose evil. It is never implied that God wanted to prevent this but simply couldn't. You don't understand the nature of God at all if you make this kind of argument.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            This defense is extremely flimsy. If you want to adopt it, you have to assume that you are significantly less free than a person who is inexplicably drawn towards the idea of murdering people.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't even make logical sense.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, you're just too dim to get it. If people can lack certain evil inclinations without losing any freedom compared to people who have those inclinations, the defense falls apart because there's no reason not to make people who lack all evil inclinations.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you know how many religions believe in a non-Abrahamic monotheistic, loving God?
            Islam and Judaism (Them being Abrahamic is irrelevant)

            >No, because without a redeeming God, there is no redemption nor eternal punishment.
            You just said that retributive justice is another way to solve evil. If God enacts retributive justice on everyone then the problem of evil is solved without any need for redemption

            For Christians it's quite obvious that Christianity *is* monotheism. Pagans had some decent, but imperfect ideas about the Godhead, Moslems and israelites just ripped off Christianity, and deism is not worth discussing.

            >Moslems and israelites just ripped off Christianity, and deism is not worth discussing.
            Can you actually explain what's wrong with these views?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Islam and Judaism (Them being Abrahamic is irrelevant)
            It's not irrelevant because they all believe in the same God.

            >If God enacts retributive justice on everyone then the problem of evil is solved without any need for redemption
            No, that actually doesn't solve it at all. I said it was half of the equation, not an alternative. Simply punishing evil does nothing to save the innocent or the righteous from certain death.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not irrelevant because they all believe in the same God.
            The original question is about arguments for Christianity. Even if they nominally believe in the same God, they're different religions and believe different things about said God.

            >Simply punishing evil does nothing to save the innocent or the righteous from certain death.
            I thought it was the Christian view that all humans are guilty of sin, which is why redemption is even a thing in the first place. People only become innocent and righteous after they are redeemed. If God redeemed no one then no one would be innocent, meaning everyone would be punished, thus the problem of evil is solved with no need for redemption

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >People only become innocent and righteous after they are redeemed. If God redeemed no one then no one would be innocent, meaning everyone would be punished, thus the problem of evil is solved with no need for redemption
            You are forgetting Jesus and the Virgin Mary. Also your idea of "redemption" is wrong. Evil destroys good, so allowing it to destroy everything good without saving any of it would hardly be the best outcome.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Without redemption everyone is guilty of sin and evil
            God punishes evil, thus God punishes everyone
            All evil has been punished, the problem of evil is solved

            Where is the issue in this?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Where is the issue in this?
            Not everyone is guilty of sin, and evil implies that someone was also a victim of evil. Some of those who are victims of evil are innocent. And it does not allow for a good end, since almost everyone dies and evil "wins".

            Nope, you're just too dim to get it. If people can lack certain evil inclinations without losing any freedom compared to people who have those inclinations, the defense falls apart because there's no reason not to make people who lack all evil inclinations.

            I don't get how you're linking evil with freedom or why freedom matters in this context.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not everyone is guilty of sin
            Are you even a Christian? Even if you don't believe in original sin surely you believe that everyone commits at least one sin in their life

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The love of God and his independency. If God is unchanging while being the source of love, he must be trnitarian because before the creation of the world, the only one he could direct this love to is himself i.e. self-love. God being three persons makes this love benevolent while, for example, a God like the the one of Islam or judaism would end up in a narcissistic way, meaning he would need to create beings to direct his love towards to, which goes against God lack of need of material beings, or would mean he becoming loving only after creating beings.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    No

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    No and the Trinity is incoherent
    3x=y imply three equal parts of y

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    For Christians it's quite obvious that Christianity *is* monotheism. Pagans had some decent, but imperfect ideas about the Godhead, Moslems and israelites just ripped off Christianity, and deism is not worth discussing.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's always been clear to me that the Trinity was invented to keep the commoners dependent on the Church. It was literally "TRUST THE SCIENCE" of its day kek

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    there is no no mereological argument for revelation.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *