It would be interesting and refreshing to see some real arguments. Are there any?
You may wish to direct your attention to
this “onto-cosmological” argument by philosopher Bill Vallicella.
I trust that, at the very least, you will find it slightly more worthy of your time, despite that it may require a substantial chunk of it in order for you to allow it its due comprehension, analysis, and perhaps response. I slowly read through it once last year, and, on that less-critical, more-interpretive read, thought it significantly interesting and refreshing in its own right. Also, for what it’s worth, I only came upon it because I am a fan of the author’s other philosophical work.
If you wish to
genuinely and openly discuss it with me, then let me know, and I can try my best to re-read it thoroughly and set aside some time. However, I’ve got tons of other, more pressing, things going on lately, so I won’t promise timely responses or even that it’ll not be cut short. Plus, although I admire your quite apparent intelligence, clarity, and straightforwardness (and how, I can tell, you’re relatively familiar with academic philosophy), I’ve seen occasional posts of yours in which you much-too-glibly dismiss the arguments of others, or, say, fail to charitably interpret another who’s given, at minimum, a strong
prima facie, albeit arguably ill-worded, hint at a competing explanation of some phenomenon. (And to be honest, I never really blame you for rejecting most, if not all, the theistic arguments launched recently on this board or elsewhere, not to mention the unsophisticated variants you graciously point out.) So I would insist that we first spend sufficient time establishing terminology and hashing out the important concepts, before throwin’ down. And early on, I’ll be very critically judging whether, in my humble opinion, you’re able and willing to hold a fruitful discussion – one which is superior to debate, especially given that the latter is hardly ever even remotely conclusive to the satisfaction of both parties – so please make it clear that you do appreciate the complexity and gravity in these areas of ontology, whether your mind has already taken a position on them or not, that you’re primarily looking for truth and not dominance, and that you’re not just going to dogmatically lecture me on your system of thought. (Be clear: I’m not accusing you of any of this yet; it’s just come to be expected out of those who conflict over basic philosophical and religious questions, as I’m sure you, arguing from the opposite doxastic side, are all-too-aware,
including from the utmost holy and humble traditional theists and Catholic Christians such as myself! Please note that I haven’t firmly made up my mind about this essay, mainly because I’m not committed to any metaphysical system re: the ontological status of facts as of yet; Typically, moreso lately, I lean toward Aristotelico-Thomism, but with considerable sympathy for Platonism and
tons for early Wittgenstein. Thus I hope to clarify my own views in the process of pitting these arguments against yours, in which case I should tackle the questions with less of my pride invested.)
OK. Now, one of the reasons I’m fond of this argument is that it doesn’t rely on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. On the other hand, I’ve noticed elsewhere that you do seem to reject the “true existence” of
abstracta, e.g.,
facts,
propositions, and, I believe, numbers (or even anything non-“physical” for that
matter [insert shameless highlight of pun, if indeed a fitting pun, here], such as properties like truth or logical soundness, traits like rationality or vitality; in short, essential form and relation are apparently not
real according to your analysis). Therefore, you may wish to, at some point while we’re getting onto the same page, outline your reasons for such a boldly consequential “ontological elimination” – though, that topic
is addressed at length in one of the paper’s sections.* Spoiler: the argument’s force hinges more on the real universal necessity of “mere” universal possibility than it does on any contingent actual entity. In other words, it’s largely tied logically to one’s acceptance of the legitimacy of modal reasoning, let alone belief in the actuality of abstracta.**
*Italicized words, and those within quotations, will certainly need to be determined definitely.
**Do you also find it ironic that you say you’re looking for “
real arguments,” i.e., the actual existence of abstract items? Ha. Debate… over?
Wait… so the question is; why is Christianity true? How do you mean? Why is Christianity a true religion? Why does Christianity contain truth? Why do people believe in the Christian vision of God? What are you really asking here?