RE: The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?
July 12, 2013 at 11:51 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2013 at 12:09 am by genkaus.)
(July 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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.
I see these two premises as contradictory to each other. You've defined god as the greatest conceivable being. However, you also require him to act in a particular manner by necessity. I'd say that doesn't have to act in a specific manner by necessity is conceivably greater than this one. A god who acts holy and perfect because he chooses to would be greater than one who does so because he has to.
(July 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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].
P3 and P4 are not as contradictory as you'd like. It is possible for him to desire that different people should consider different things as true and live according to different interpretations. It is possible that he considers that any interpretation would result in an acceptable way of life which would result in us joining him in heaven.
(July 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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.
One issue with defining god as you have is that either such a being must be beyond all logic or it must be subject to independent laws of reason and morality. For example, you are assuming some kind of morality if you conclude that as a result of being omni-benevolent he also must desire everyone to join him in heaven or that despite being omnipotent, he can't simply disregard how people have lived and have them join him in heaven anyway. Both of your conclusions here are effectively the same and therefore, redundant. If [P1, 2 or 3] have to be false even in part then it implies that a being fitting that description cannot exist.
(July 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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.
I've often wondered why more Christians and Muslims do not choose to go with the fourth argument. It'd solve all their problems and leave their opponent without any refutation.
"My god is not subject to any rules of logic or reason. He doesn't have to act or be in any particular manner. Whatever characteristics or intentions you posit as a result of rational conclusions are invalid. He defines what benevolence or potence is and by his definitions he is omni-benevolent and omnipotent. Your concepts do not apply."
(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.
We get it from all the other "not-true-Christians" who keep touting the horn of god's omni-benevolence.
(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.
Free-will is not something "given". If it exists, then it'd be a natural aspect of a rational mind. Therefore, any imposition or limitation on it is a violation of free-will.
(July 11, 2013 at 2:12 am)Godschild Wrote: 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.
Clearly, a lot of other Christians disagree with your interpretation of the scriptures.
(July 11, 2013 at 2:28 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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?
You are not wrong in the sense that that is how a lot of believers define god. However, you are wrong in assuming that having posited such an illogical being to begin with, they'd then be willing consider logical refutations for it.
