The Problem of Imperfect Revelation: Your Thoughts?

[genkaus]

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.

My point was, rather than granting contradictory moral premises and formulating an argument around them, you could've just as simply pointed out the contradiction and saved yourself the trouble.

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.

They are starting to. A lot of theologians have tried to reconcile different religions by using this argument.

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

Okay, that makes sense.

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.

You missed the point here. Saying that "X acts according to its nature" is a tautological statement. That's because X's nature is determined by how X acts. The statement doesn't tell us anything about X or its nature - its just another way of saying "X does what it does and doesn't do what it doesn't do".

Accepting that god acts contrary to his nature would be self-contradictory. It'd mean that the theist has given up on any pretensions that this being is subject to logic or laws of reality.

---

I'm glad you reminded me please break it down into denominations and if you would by individual churches in those denominations too. We do not want any mistakes here do we.

Let me remind you of this - Not my problem.