The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

I don't think I disagree, but there is a reason I grant these 2 premises: They're accepted by major Christian apologists and their followers. Premises 1) is merely an acceptance of Plantinga's Ontological argument and the Kālam Cosmological argument, and premise 2) is simply an acceptance of the "God's nature" objection to the Euthyphro Dilemma. So if they do in fact contradict each other, it would seem to necessitate dropping either one or both of the aforementioned arguments, which I think actually makes this argument bette! xD

To play Devil's advocate, I would think that apologists would respond that greatness of moral character trumps the apparent greatness of being able to behave otherwise. Or something. Moral perfection and consistency, in other words, seems to be the prime "greatness-making" attribute to apologists.

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.

Now there's something I didn't see coming. xD Hm, the only (slight) issue I have is that believers tend to believe something along the lines of God revealing the "absolute truth" in his revelations, so most believers couldn't really use that defense I think.

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.

There might have been a slight miscommunication on my part. It isn't soley on the basis of his purported omnibenevolence that I'm concluding He wants us to go to Heaven, but from scriptures detailing that claim, such as when Paul states something like te following:

"He isn't willing that any should perish, but gain eternal life."

The omnibenevolence just assists that premise.

Oh, I know my conclusions are redundant. I forgot to erase the first. :p

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.

I think I can (somewhat) help you there. Like I say above, it's how they try (and fail) to escape the Euthyphro Dilemma, which is another huge problem for them.

"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."

Lol. Sounds about right.

Thanks for the critique.