First off, I should note that I originally posted this argument over on the sister site a few days ago (though I'm slightly modifying it in this post): http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&p=940886


So I was wondering what your thoughts were on this argument of mine, i.e are there any particular fallacies or weak points in it?

The Problem of Imperfect Revelation:


P1) God (Yahweh) is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being (the Greatest Conceivable Being or GCB) that exists in the actual world and is the perfect & uncaused creator of the universe.


P2) God's actions are, by necessity, consistent with his holy and perfect nature as the GCB.


P3) God desires (or intends that) that we - his special creations - join him in Heaven by accepting certain propositions as being true and living in a certain way, which are enumerated in holy texts that God directly inspired to would be prophets and followers.


P4) There have been - and still are - denominational disputes amongst God's followers - with said disputes often having to do with differing interpretations of the holy texts - and these disputes have included even what is necessary to achieve [P3] (saved by faith, saved by works, having special knowledge (ancient Gnostic Christians)).


P5) Given [P1 - 3], it follows from [P4] that it must be consistent with God's nature to allow denominational disputes to exist, even though they conflict with one of God's desires ([P4]), i.e entrance to heaven.


P6) However, given [P1 - 3] it also follows that God has both the power and motive to have prevented [P4], and - given [P2] & [P3] specifically - it is consistent with God's nature to reveal himself to members of his human creation, so that [P3] can come to fruition without fail, given [P1].


C) Therefore it follows that a being fitting the description of Yahweh ([P1 - 3]) cannot exist.

OR

C) Therefore [P1, 2 or 3] must be false, either in whole or in part.



What do you think, does it work? My intention was to show that it seems contradictory to claim God's 3 'omni-' traits and intention for we humans to join him in heaven, with the fact that the apparent revelation detailing the method for this can even be interpreted in different ways, such that even the method can be disagreed upon.

Otherwise, it would seem that a Christian or Muslim would have to - if accepting the argument - come to one or more of these conclusions:

*God can violate free will.

*God doesn't posses one or more of His 'omni-' attributes.

*God doesn't intend for us to go to heaven.

*God's actions are not - or do not have to be - consistent with his nature.


Let me have it.

I think it's a little too elaborate, but it seems good.

I think Omni3 + picture of starving African child + headslap suffices.

the problem lies with the impossibility of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. being omnibenevolent, god cannot wish evil upon anything, that makes him not omnipotent.

i agree with your reasoning.

from the bible, and other things i hear about the christian god, i can only conclude that if he has any personality at all, it's that of a drama queen.

(July 9, 2013 at 11:17 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: the problem lies with the impossibility of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. being omnibenevolent, god cannot wish evil upon anything, that makes him not omnipotent.

I think an apologist would respond along the lines of restating what I said in Premise 2: That God's actions must be, by necessity, consistent with his nature. So he would be as powerful as possible, in as much as such doesn't conflict with his omnibenevolence.

Quote:i agree with your reasoning.

Thanks.

Keep 'em coming.

You appear to have two implicit premises, both of which are debatable:

a) a specific interpretation of a holy text according to a specific standard of interpretation delineates all and only that which is necessary for salvation,

and,

b) differing interpretations of what is required for salvation and differing actions in accordance with those interpretations results in differing levels of success wrt salvation.

I'm reminded of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa who started out as a priest at a temple to Kali in Dakshineswar and ended up spending years as a Muslim and a Christian, among other things; he saw all faiths as compatible with the one truth. Those of the Bah'ai faith believe something similar.

God is not omnibenevolent, where did you get that idea from, I know it wasn't from scriptures.

God will not violate the free will He's given us, your problem is you believe god gave free will in the whole of our lives, this is no scriptural. God gave us free will to chose Him or to reject Him, outside of that the amount of free will God allows you to have depends on His will.

With these two points wrong all of it fails.

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, the scriptures never hint at God being omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent is not part of Christianity, you will not find it in any Christian doctrine, it is a word made up by nonbelievers to try and gain an edge in an argument. The use of omnibenevolent is a dishonest way to support a dead argument.

(July 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: P1) God (Yahweh) is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being (the Greatest Conceivable Being or GCB) that exists in the actual world and is the perfect & uncaused creator of the universe.

This is impossible because of the problem of evil. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then evil would not exist. If he allows evil but has the power to eradicate it, then he is not omnibenevolent. If he wants to eradicate all evil but can't, then he is not omnipotent.

(July 11, 2013 at 2:12 am)Godschild Wrote: God is not omnibenevolent, where did you get that idea from, I know it wasn't from scriptures.

Aside from the Bible's abundant references to God's supreme goodness (far moreso in the New Testament than in the Hebrew Bible), I'm using omnibenevolence not because it's necessary for the argument, but because it is a VERY common claim by Christian apologist. Even one of the more prominent of them, Alvin Plantinga, uses the concept in his Modal Ontological Argument for God's existence under the term "all-loving". Hence, I use it. For my argument, I only need it to be the case that God wants for the people he creates to go to heaven and that his actions must be consistent with his nature.

Quote:God will not violate the free will He's given us, your problem is you believe god gave free will in the whole of our lives, this is no scriptural. God gave us free will to chose Him or to reject Him, outside of that the amount of free will God allows you to have depends on His will.

It isn't really "free will" if it's 'given' to you, and can be reneged by God. That's "will-insofar-as-I-allow-it", i.e NOT free.

Quote:With these two points wrong all of it fails.

Considering the poorly thought out nature of your objections, I disagree.

Quote:God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, the scriptures never hint at God being omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolent is not part of Christianity, you will not find it in any Christian doctrine, it is a word made up by nonbelievers to try and gain an edge in an argument. The use of omnibenevolent is a dishonest way to support a dead argument.

Omnibenevolent merely means the same thing as "all-loving". The Bible never actually uses the word "omnipotent" or "omniscient", but are you really stupidly going to claim that the Bible does NOT refer to God's unparalleled power, knowledge and goodness?
Also, unbelievers didn't make the word up, believers did (e.g. Plantinga and the like).

---

(July 11, 2013 at 12:26 am)apophenia Wrote:


You appear to have two implicit premises, both of which are debatable:

a) a specific interpretation of a holy text according to a specific standard of interpretation delineates all and only that which is necessary for salvation,

Hm, I don't think you quite got what I was getting at. My point was that assume Premises 1) & 2) are a correct picture of the god Yahweh (and they're used by major apologists). If premise 3) is true - that God wants for his human creations to go to heaven, and God is capable of revealing himself to people without eliminating there free will - then there is no impediment to God revealing himself to people as he did with, say, his prophets, and clearly their free will couldn't have been broken.

More to the point, assuming God instead chose scriptures as his means of disseminating information on how to achieve premise 3), given premise 1), God should have the ability to make revelation not truly possible to having interpretations, at the very least, of the means of salvation being wrong.

Am I wrong in this?

Quote:b) differing interpretations of what is required for salvation and differing actions in accordance with those interpretations results in differing levels of success wrt salvation.

Ah, I guess you did get what I was getting at, but is it reallt debateable? I mean, if He's supposed to be able to reveal himself to people sans-eliminating free will, and he can do anything that is consistent with his nature, an imperfect revelation that can be wildly interpreted seems rather... inconsistent, if what truly matters to Him is getting people to Heaven.


Anyhow, I hope I didn't misunderstand your objections, and thanks for the critique.

(July 11, 2013 at 2:12 am)Godschild Wrote: God will not violate the free will He's given us, your problem is you believe god gave free will in the whole of our lives, this is no scriptural. God gave us free will to chose Him or to reject Him, outside of that the amount of free will God allows you to have depends on His will.

Omniscience and free will are incompatible.

What choice did I get? Your god created me with a mind that is incapable of believing claims unless I am provided with demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic to support them. That's the way my mind has always worked from the time I was a kid. The existence of your god does not live up to the criteria that I require for belief.

I could no more believe in the existence of your god than you could believe in the existence of invisible unicorns.

So, as far as I can see, your god created me, knowing ahead of time that I would not believe he exists, and be destined to hell. And to make it worse, he knows exactly what it would it would take in order for me to believe, yet he fails to provide me with it.