OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 06:31:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Argument from inconsistent revelations  (Read 6358 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« on: June 27, 2011, 12:34:04 AM »

A few months ago I was having a discussion with ialmisry via PM over the various religions in the world, and I brought up the predicemnt for the Jew. Basically that God's plan for salvation worked with Christ, billions upon billions (living and dead) would acknowledge themselves to be Christians and if Christianity was false then why would God let it spread? The last bit I have never seen a succint answer for a Jew and honestly do not expect to receive one.

But it brings up an interesting argument against the existence of God, namely the argument from incosisten revelations. Here's a brief summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations

My refutation would be that Christ instructed his disciples to baptize all nations and proclaim the Gospel. And it basically comes down a personal choice to reject or embrace it. And St. Paul in Romans addresses the issue if the Gospel doesn't reach to certain people they still have the law written on their hearts.

But I'm not sure if my counter-argument is effective, can anyone help me out here?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2011, 01:03:49 AM »

Quote from: wikipedia
The argument from inconsistent revelations, also known as the avoiding the wrong hell problem, is an argument against the existence of God.

I wouldn't so much call it an argument against the existence of God as an argument in favour of the philosophical ineptitude of its proponents (the French, especially, being terribad philosophers, are quite fond of it).

Quote from: wikipedia
It asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations.

So if I take some cubic zirconia and a diamond and put them all in a bag, the diamond ceases to be a diamond because of the presence of the zirconia?

Quote from: wikipedia
The argument states that since a person not privy to revelation must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of its proponent [...]

This is certainly not the Christian position.

Quote from: wikipedia
[...] and there is no way for a mere mortal to resolve these conflicting claims by investigation [...]

Debatable, but let us say that, even conceding that this would be true of intellectual enquiry, it is not necessarily true of other methods of truth-apprehension.

Quote from: wikipedia
[...] it is prudent to reserve one's judgment.

Surely a costs/benefits analysis would be a wiser course than mere reluctance to take a position? If god A says you will be condemned to eternal pain and agony whether you actively deny his revelation or merely reserve judgment and god B says we'll all receive eternal reward whether we subscribe to his revalation or not, surely it would be better to go with god A? It's a modified Paschal's wager, I know, but I feel the argument is stupid enough to validate it.

Quote from: wikipedia
If it were to be assumed that:

The existence of some god is certain,
There is some number (n) of distinct, mutually exclusive interpretations of that god one could believe in,
There is no way to tell which one, if any, were true a priori
then the probability of having chosen to practice the correct religion (through upbringing or by making Pascal's Wager) cannot be greater than 1⁄n. Therefore, if there are only two distinct faiths, the probability that a person who chooses to believe in either faith has chosen the correct one is 1 in 2 (50% or 1⁄2). Four distinct faiths would result in the probability dropping to 1 in 4 (25% or 1⁄4), and so on.

Since there are hundreds of religions in existence, the probability, a priori, of any one of them being true to the exclusion of all others is less than one percent.

This "proof" raises so many epistemological questions ...
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2011, 04:22:36 AM »

I'm wondering whether this was helpful or just repeated counter-arguments you had already thought up?

There are better philosophers than me around here that I'm sure could assist!
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.06 seconds with 30 queries.