Note: I'm also posting over on AF.org under my 'MindForgedManacle' account.
So, I've made a thread on my argument before we lost months of posts, so I thought I'd make it again and pick y'alls brains on what may be wrong/fallacious with this argument of mine, and potential points of attack by theists (or even my fellow unbelievers).
I did slightly update it to improve it some.
Problem of Imperfect Revelation:
P1) God (Yahweh) is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being (the Greatest Conceivable Being, GCB) who is the uncaused and perfect creator of the universe.
P2) God's actions are by necessity consistent with his holy and loving nature as the GCB and a perfect being.
P3) God desires that we - his special creations - join him in Heaven after death by believing certain propositions to be true and living a certain way as enumerated in holy texts, the contents of which were inspired directly by Yahweh Himself to some members of his human creation (by visions, audible commands, etc.).
P4) There have been and still are denominational disputes amongst God's followers, many of which are due to differing interpretations of the holy texts themselves and said disputes include even what is required to attain [P3].
P5) Given [P1] and [P3], it follows from [P2] & [P4] that it must be consistent with God's nature to allow for denominational disputes to exist, even those which cause failure for adherents to attain [P3] that God desires (as per [P4]).
P6) From [P1] through [P3], it likewise follows that God has both the power AND motive to prevent any denominational disputes, and - given [P2] and [P3] specifically - it is consistent with God's nature to reveal himself to any of His creations so that [P3] will come to fruirion without fail and without violating their free will.
C) Therefore, [P1], [P2] or [P3] must, in whole or in part, be false by necessity.
What do you all think? The argument seems to work in my head, and premise 4 is definitely true. And more importantly, it seems to force Christian and Muslims to accept one or more of the following (each of which has massive problems):
-God can violate free will.
-God is not omnipotent, omniscient and/or omnibenevolent.
-God doesn't desire for all of His human creations to avoid eternal damnation/attain eternal joy, which nips omnibenevolence.
-God's actions aren't consistent with his nature.
So, does my argument succeed? If not, where was I fallacious and can it be fixed to work? Thanks for any help. :)
There is a lot of conflicting references in the bible. For instance... God gave mankind free will. But there is a divine plan and you cannot change your fate. It's all f@ck£d.
Makes perfectly logical sense to me. The Theists will never buy it. Remember to many of them 1+1+1=1. To others, their book is perfect and if you don't think so, then your logic is wrong. :rolleyes:
I don't get their logic, but yours makes sense. Guess we'll roast wienies in hell together.
Quote from: "PickelledEggs"There is a lot of conflicting references in the bible. For instance... God gave mankind free will. But there is a divine plan and you cannot change your fate. It's all f@ck£d.
Well yes. But the reason I didn't make that a part of this original argument of mine is because it removes an annoying - false - claim for theists (Christians and Muslims, namely) to use: scriptural inerrantism. By making no reference to that, and instead focusing on the indisputable fact that scriptures can even be interpreted differently in the first place (hence the existence of denominations in, specifically, Christianity and Islam), the argument is that much more potent and can't be ignored by invoking a demonstrably false belief that many Abrahamic theists hold true. :lol:
Pretty much agree, though in my case the base argument is why does a perfect, all knowing all inclusive god need to make a race of imperfect and mistake prone people just to worship him in the first place? Smacks of vanity and self indulgence, I must say.
No God, no dispute. :)
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Makes perfectly logical sense to me. The Theists will never buy it. Remember to many of them 1+1+1=1. To others, their book is perfect and if you don't think so, then your logic is wrong. :rolleyes:
I don't get their logic, but yours makes sense. Guess we'll roast wienies in hell together.
Their book is perfect except for "the parts that don't apply anymore"... whatever that means. :rolleyes:
I heard it from a fundie. #-o
Yeah, I get what you're getting at. I think this argument is quite solid as it stands, though I have to admit that it's a bit less polished than I am comfortable with.
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Yeah, I get what you're getting at. I think this argument is quite solid as it stands, though I have to admit that it's a bit less polished than I am comfortable with.
Thanks for the feedback. :) I figured it would; not used to this sort of thing, which is why I need heeeelllppp. ;) I've been trying to spice things up by coming up with some new arguments to run.
What about the argument needs to be polished? Too unfocused or naive in some way?
I'm still trying to figure out why an omnipotent being who wants something doesn't just make that thing happen, but instead choses to make it really difficult to obtain.
I'd say that P3) in and of itself is imcompatible with P1) and P2) because it is impossible for an omnipotent being to not achieve all it desires without effort required on anyone else's part. He could easily give us free will (which seems to be one of his desires) and then send us all to heaven (which seems another desire), but giving free will and then forcing specific behaviour on someone breaks the basic idea behind free will, and desiring to send people to heaven and then not doing so breaks the basic idea of omnipotence.
The reason there are so many interpretations is because the Scriptures and what ever bible you use are so ambiguous you can interpret them to support any belief, even atheism. "Seek the truth and yee shall be set free." For atheist it is free of religious superstitious nonsense and magical Neanderthal thinking. :wink: Solitary
Quote from: "Plu"I'm still trying to figure out why an omnipotent being who wants something doesn't just make that thing happen, but instead choses to make it really difficult to obtain.
Yeah, that's my main point behind the argument: Why does an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being desire something for his creations that he not only can do, but according to theists,
has done by revealing himself to people (usually prophets) and still (again, according to theists) maintaining their free will. Boggles the mind.
QuoteI'd say that P3) in and of itself is imcompatible with P1) and P2) because it is impossible for an omnipotent being to not achieve all it desires without effort required on anyone else's part. He could easily give us free will (which seems to be one of his desires) and then send us all to heaven (which seems another desire), but giving free will and then forcing specific behaviour on someone breaks the basic idea behind free will, and desiring to send people to heaven and then not doing so breaks the basic idea of omnipotence.
Indeed.
Hm, one thing I anticipate being used against this argument could be the claim that God could have "morally sufficient reasons for choosing not to unquestionably revealing himself to everyone." I think it'd fail for the same reason you describe above.
I think your argument is sound.
The free will thing is different, however. The term doesn't occur in the Bible, and there are many stories in that book in which God violates people's free will. There's no way to reconcile people having free will with the basic notion of God having created us to worship him.
Frank
I think the answer is that Yahweh is just a sadistic shit. Or he was made up by morons. The result of either one would be the same.
I think it may be helpful to explicitly express why you are making this argument. What I surmise is that you are making this argument because if a Christian holds all the claims you mention in your argument to be true, then they are led to a logical contradiction.
I think your argument does make the case that if a Christian were to hold all of those premises to be true, then they are led to a logical contradiction. Again, I think it might be good to make the conclusion more explicitly say that; e.g., in your conclusion you might add a section of "because":
C) Therefore, [P1], [P2] or [P3] must, in whole or in part, be false by necessity because...
Or maybe there is some other way to make more explicit some of the inferential steps that your argument validly implies, but where you don't explicitly "connect-the-dots" - in case someone has trouble making those inferential steps themselves.
I am inclined to think that just claiming the existence of a god that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, given the reality that newborns cannot reasonably be held responsible for any suffering they may experience, leads to a contradiction. How could an omnibenevolent god with the power to prevent a newborn from suffering severely allow the newborn to suffer severely even though there is no reasonable case to be made that newborns are responsible for their suffering? I think that the suffering of newborns implies that if there is a god that the god can't be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
You can't argue using logic with believers because if you could they wouldn't be believers. They are believers because they rationalize any argument to support their magical thinking and superstitious nonsense. Unless they can offer reliable evidence for their belief in a God they are delusional because they are basing their belief on their emotions or faulty reasoning. Solitary
I have the urge to P
I have a problem with your reasoning, namely:
QuoteP1) God (Yahweh) is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being (the Greatest Conceivable Being, GCB) who is the uncaused and perfect creator of the universe
Since omnipotence is logically impossible.
U = everything that can be done
A = everything God can do
B = everything not contained in A.
To prove God's omnipotence, you need to show that:
B = {}
By the definition of omnipotence, U ? A.
and
B = {}
Contained in U (and therefore A) is the action "adding items to B."
-If an item is added to B, then B is no longer empty, and therefore God is not omnipotent.
-If God cannot add an item to B, then "adding items to B" will therefore belong in B, and thus God is not omnipotent.
-If "adding items to B" were for some reason disallowed, then U is no longer "everything that can be done."
You see what I did there? I made it look like I was going to disagree with you... :)
That's the logical equivalent of "Can God create a rock ..."
The Christian apologistic solution to the problem is to claim that God can violate logic. Which creates the problem that an illogical god can't exist. (I'm not disagreeing with you either.)
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Note: I'm also posting over on AF.org under my 'MindForgedManacle' account.
So, I've made a thread on my argument before we lost months of posts, so I thought I'd make it again and pick y'alls brains on what may be wrong/fallacious with this argument of mine, and potential points of attack by theists (or even my fellow unbelievers).
I did slightly update it to improve it some.
Problem of Imperfect Revelation:
P1) God (Yahweh) is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being (the Greatest Conceivable Being, GCB) who is the uncaused and perfect creator of the universe.
P2) God's actions are by necessity consistent with his holy and loving nature as the GCB and a perfect being.
P3) God desires that we - his special creations - join him in Heaven after death by believing certain propositions to be true and living a certain way as enumerated in holy texts, the contents of which were inspired directly by Yahweh Himself to some members of his human creation (by visions, audible commands, etc.).
P4) There have been and still are denominational disputes amongst God's followers, many of which are due to differing interpretations of the holy texts themselves and said disputes include even what is required to attain [P3].
P5) Given [P1] and [P3], it follows from [P2] & [P4] that it must be consistent with God's nature to allow for denominational disputes to exist, even those which cause failure for adherents to attain [P3] that God desires (as per [P4]).
P6) From [P1] through [P3], it likewise follows that God has both the power AND motive to prevent any denominational disputes, and - given [P2] and [P3] specifically - it is consistent with God's nature to reveal himself to any of His creations so that [P3] will come to fruirion without fail and without violating their free will.
C) Therefore, [P1], [P2] or [P3] must, in whole or in part, be false by necessity.
What do you all think? The argument seems to work in my head, and premise 4 is definitely true. And more importantly, it seems to force Christian and Muslims to accept one or more of the following (each of which has massive problems):
-
So, does my argument succeed? If not, where was I fallacious and can it be fixed to work? Thanks for any help. :)
To me, it works. It is not a new argument, and has in many forms been batted around for quite some time. Here are some things that have been brought by theists that are related to such criticisms.
1. Original sin causes such arguments etc.
2. Greater Good theodicies. Greater goods result from various evils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy)
3. The problem of the hiddeness of God. Google Schellenberg for the thinker best known for writing on this.
4. God is inscrutable. ""My ways are not your ways. See Romans 11 also. Used by everybody from Paul to Luther.
5. Skeptical Theism God is inscrutable and we cannot conclude apparent problems are conclusive
disproofs. Takes #4 into the realm of philosophy of religion.
6. God does not wish to interfere with our free will.
But allowing original sin to exist is intefering with our free will. Romans 11, why did the Jews
reject Jesus as son of God? Paul, God hardened their hearts not to. God does not really value
free will thenn.
You are posting about a variant on what is called argument from non-belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief)
Related issues, the problems of numerous revelations. Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon et al. Why doesn't God do something to help mankind settle this issue?
The disappearance of God. In the Bible, God appears to Moses and the Israelites. Why does God now refuse to appear to mankind and settle issues as per Exodus?
Cheerful Charlie
Quote from: "Colanth"That's the logical equivalent of "Can God create a rock ..."
The Christian apologistic solution to the problem is to claim that God can violate logic. Which creates the problem that an illogical god can't exist. (I'm not disagreeing with you either.)
The real problem is, if God creates logic, the rules and laws and metaphysical necessities of the Universe, God can have any state of affairs God wants. God is good. God has a good nature, and of his own free will, never does moral evil. Such a God would as far as able eliminate moral evil.
So God would give man a God-like good nature and a God-like free will. Since God creates logic, anything that may prevent the above would be eliminated by God.
Moral evil exists.
That God does not in fact exist.
God then cannot be outside of or creator of logic, the rules and laws and metaphysical necessities of the Universe. So we also by this argument establish naturalism exists outside of God and beyond God and his reach. Since there are a number of disproofs of God, God is not a good hypothesis, so naturalism , now proven logically to exist provides all we need to account for the existence of things as they are. Even if we posit a God, naturalism does the heavy lifting, not God
The claim God is outside of logic is a rather nice claim for atheists as it easily becomes a logical proof of naturalism, and self destructs.
Cheerful Charlie
In all the years I was a Mormon or a Christian, the logic of God's existence was never an issue, nor the paradoxical nature of his existence; inside the universe, outside, or whatever. For a believer, quite simply a non issue. Go to a church class and question any of their dogma and you will be instantly labeled as a troublemaker and become ostracized. They have a name for people that question the logic of religious beliefs. They are called atheists.
Quote from: "Cheerful Charlie"The disappearance of God. In the Bible, God appears to Moses and the Israelites. Why does God now refuse to appear to mankind and settle issues as per Exodus?
Cheerful Charlie
Something could have happened to God. He died maybe?
He could have decided he only needed to appear once or twice to say what he had to say?
Maybe Moses was just a crazy charlatan who told people God spoke to him?
Maybe the whole story was just made up?
God wants to hide from modern man, except for Joseph Smith, Pat Robertson, and of course the Pope?
Never-the-less, it is odd that God doesn't show himself to most people.
Quote from: "FrankDK"I think your argument is sound.
The free will thing is different, however. The term doesn't occur in the Bible, and there are many stories in that book in which God violates people's free will. There's no way to reconcile people having free will with the basic notion of God having created us to worship him.
Frank
On free will, one of my favorite Bible chapters is Romans 11. Why did the Jews not believe in Jesus as son of God? Because God hardened their hearts not to. Here, God condemns most of an entire people.
And as per the Gospels, whoever does not accept Jesus as Son of God is condemned to burn in hell.
So God doesn't value free will as much as many theists claim.
But then the question arises, why not make all the Jews believers? Why not then, make all men, believers? This raises questions then as to the alleged goodness of God, and biblical claims God is merciful, just, and compassionate. God's sub-goodnesses.
Christians usually have to move from here to special pleading. God is inscrutable. Romans 11
:33.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
Cheerful Charlie
Faith is to believe in spite of logic or lack of evidence.
Quote from: "Cheerful Charlie"Quote from: "Colanth"That's the logical equivalent of "Can God create a rock ..."
The Christian apologistic solution to the problem is to claim that God can violate logic. Which creates the problem that an illogical god can't exist. (I'm not disagreeing with you either.)
The real problem is, if God creates logic
He doesn't create it but, since a god not bound by logic can't exist, he's bound by logic (in order to exist). And if he's bound by logic, he's not God.
The basic problem is that Christianity has defined its god in such ways as to make it not possible for the god so defined to exist. They overthought the problem. Deists had a much better idea - their god created the universe. Period. Nothing there to form an argument against.
> There is a lot of conflicting references in the bible. For instance... God gave mankind free will.
Where does it say that in the Bible? I don't believe the Bible mentions free will.
Frank