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.
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.
