Hi. What you say works well in the pragmatic sense. But I'd say that we can still find arguments to support that Christianity is also true.

I wouldn't worry about philosophy finding certainty and replacing faith - it's not going to happen. To be very strict, certainty is only found in pure logic and mathematics. For everything else, truth is at best only reasonable or probable. And true faith is not blind but supported by reason. It is "the act of believing and behaving based on knowledge that is not certain yet reasonable".

Hi. I agree with pretty much everything you said. The argument on its own has holes. I can give you an answer that stands outside of the argument though.

Each individual Christian claim either falls under the set of topics that (1) can be found with natural reason alone (which includes science), or (2) needs to be supported by divine revelation such as the Bible.

If (1), then the argument stands. If (2), then fortunately arguments can be made to defend that the Bible is a reliable source: If all the verifiable claims from a source or method are verified to be true, then, by induction, it is reasonable to conclude that the remaining unverifiable claims from that same source or method are also true.

As an analogy: If all the planets we have observed so far are round, then it is reasonable to predict that the next planet we discover will also be round.

Hi. I responded in the other post.

>everything is Subject to change, if necessary

Even if that is true, it doesn't mean the topic is not objective. A topic can be objective yet can still change. E.g. The Earth is round in 2022. Maybe it will be flat once it get hits by a meteor; but the first statement is still objectively true.

​

>Your conclusion has absolutely no weight if you cant prove the premises. ( So like the best sounding chord, i cannot imagine a superior religion.)

All arguments should start with observation of the natural world, but they don't have to end with observation. If I put 2 spoons in an empty box and then another 2 spoons, I conclude with certainty that there are 4 spoons in the box. This could be verified with observation but it doesn't need to be.

​

>There is a possibility that there are no Truths.

Is it true that "there is a possibility that there are no truths"? The statement must refer to reality, otherwise it is just meaningless or is merely expressing our feelings and nothing more.

To put same point in a different way: Either object A exists in reality or it doesn't. If we say "Object A exists" and "Object A does not exist", one of those two statements must necessarily be true; i.e. it aligns with reality.

​

>"I will argue why Christianity is more reasonable than the other religions."
Sounds to me like saying Santana is better than Gary Moore, and i will show you why.

"Reasonable" does not mean "it makes sense to me"; it is similar to "probable" without the need to be quantified, and it means it is more likely to be true than not.

Thanks! I like scholasticism, and I think the stoics are close to it.

You are correct. There is the possibility that all Christian truths simply cannot be found (which would be bad news for Christianity).

Now this is outside of the scope of the argument, but fortunately, most Christian denominations agree that the Christians truths (at least some of them) can be found by reason, so that faith is not blind.

Thank you for the feedback!

>can't you switch out Christianity in your argument with any other thing (e.g. the Spaghetti monster) ? The real deal is to explain why you put Christianity in your Argument, and not anything else imaginable.

At this stage, yes, anything that is true can go in the argument. But this is an introduction video for Christian Philosophy. In subsequent videos, I will argue why Christianity is more reasonable than the other religions.

>Plus, your definition of Philosophy stems from an old Tradition, i don't think all modern Philosophers would agree.

Agreed as well. As I explain in the next video, the modern-day definition is actually "search for truth that is not empirically verifiable" (otherwise it is part of science). But I like the pre-modern definition so as to not limit ourselves to strictly using philosophy (in the modern sense) or science when searching for truth.

>Philosophy is the love for Wisdom, and that can entail the fact that there are no truths at all (in an objective sence atleast).

The statement "there is no objective truth" is a self-contradiction, because then this very statement cannot be objectively true ;)

I made an introduction video (2 mins) to Christian Philosophy, designed for non-Christians and non-philosophers. Here. Could I obtain some input on the content to know if it is too simple or too complex?

Thesis: If Christianity is true, then believing in its claims does not have to start with blind faith in divine revelations but can start with philosophy.

Simply put, the argument is:

1. Philosophy is the search for truth,
2. And if Christianity is true,
3. Then Philosophy will (likely) find Christianity.

Hi. By determinism, are you referring to the absence of free will? If so, what arguments made you come up with this conclusion? The fact is that we all feel like we have free will, and we all behave as though everyone else has free will. I.e. if I do a bad deed intentionally, it seems correct to blame me personally, as opposed to blaming nature which made me act this way.