A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

My point is that a message delivered by God to people [plural] over the course of three years would be superior to the private revelations of one man. You then tried to use Paul to catch me so I pointed out that Paul content was not new revelation. Mohammad and Smith wrote content that cannot be reconciled to Jesus' (Gods) teachings so therefore must be dismissed as not true.

Yeah, sorry, but using two irrelevant arguments instead of one doesn't mean both become relevant; messages supposedly delivered by god directly are not true by necessity (just ask any number of cults claiming to be led by a reincarnated Jesus) so saying that god spoke directly to christians but delivered his message through prophets in islam doesn't lead one to the conclusion that one is true and the other false. And as I've already pointed out, whether a supposed revelation is the same as earlier ones or a departure does not speak to its truth either. Neither of these points would actually help you determine which religion is true.

You seem to have this problem where you privilege the premises and delivery mechanisms of your own religion over others, which is bad because without demonstrating the efficacy or reality of those premises it's basically an assertion of personal opinion, and not an actual argument. Saying Paul's revelation must be true because it agrees with Jesus might be compelling to you, when you already believe that Jesus spoke a truthful message, but from the outside looking in, without already assuming the truth of your position, it's not a compelling point without christianity being demonstrated as true. Same with your other point; you assert that the christian method would be superior to the- ahem- propheteering method of other religions, but it is just that, an assertion. Besides, imagining a superior way to spread a message doesn't mean that anyone claiming to use that method is telling the truth, and anyone using an inferior method is lying; jetpacks would be a superior way to travel, doesn't mean that cars and planes no longer exist.

Sure, all these truth claims are a matter of opinion until you rise from the dead after a brutal crucifixion. That tends to lend weight to your truth claims over others. Of course if you don't believe the resurrection really happened, than all of your points are logical and valid.

---

Whenever my atheist friends propose that unicorns, Boo the Giant Miniature Space Hamster, or whatever can be substituted for God in the philosophical arguments for God, you are missing a key point. When you tease out the premises, you see that a description of God forms.

God would have to:
1. Transcend time and space
2. To avoid infinite regression, just be metaphysically necessary
3. Omnipotent
4. Be non-physical
5. Have a mind (consciousness, purpose, etc.)

So, you cannot substitute just "anything" into the argument. That "anything" would take on all these characteristics and just be another name for God.