The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?

[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):


-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.  :)

[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.

[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.  

I don't get their logic, but yours makes sense.  Guess we'll roast wienies in hell together.

[GurrenLagann]

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.  

[stromboli]

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.

[Aupmanyav]

No God, no dispute. :)

[PickelledEggs]

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.  

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.  
 I heard it from a fundie.  #-o

[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.

[GurrenLagann]

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?

[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.

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.

[Solitary]

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.    Solitary

[GurrenLagann]

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.

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.

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.

[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

[Colanth]

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.

[entropy]

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.