Is the (argument from inconsistent revelations) a real logical fallacy?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Nominalism vs Realism
Next: Electron's puzzles.
From: sarge on 15 May 2010 22:49 On 16 Maj, 03:46, panamfl...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > On May 15, 9:05 pm, sarge <greasethew...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On 16 Maj, 02:44, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > The argument from inconsistent revelations, also known as the avoiding > > > the wrong hell problem, is an argument against the existence of God. > > > It asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many > > > theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and > > > mutually exclusive revelations. Since a person not privy to revelation > > > must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of > > > its proponent, and there is no way for a mere mortal to resolve these > > > conflicting claims by investigation, it is prudent to reserve one's > > > judgment. > > > > The argument is also used to demonstrate the difficulty of accepting > > > the existence of any one God without personal revelation. Most > > > arguments for the existence of God are not specific to any one > > > religion and could be applied to any religion with equal validity. > > > Acceptance of any one religion thus requires a rejection of the > > > others, and when faced with these competing claims in the absence of a > > > personal revelation, it is difficult to decide amongst them. Were a > > > personal revelation to be granted to a nonbeliever, the same problem > > > of confusion would develop in each new person the believer shares the > > > revelation with. > > > > Christians believe that Jesus is the savior of the world and the son > > > of God; Jews believe that he is not. Similarly, Muslims believe that > > > the Qur'an was divinely authored, while Jews and Christians do not. > > > There are many examples of such contrasting views, indeed, opposing > > > fundamental beliefs (schisms) exist even within each major religion. > > > Christianity, for example, has many subsets, not all of which are > > > mutually compatible. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations > > > It is a very poor argument against the existence of God. A things > > existence is not dependent on differing opinions. > > Well, remember that it isn't really meant to "disprove" god/s. It's > simply an explanation of why arguments such as "Pascal's Wager" are > not logical. It's not really an "argument", as much as it is a > "demonstration". > > -Panama Floyd, Atlanta. > aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA! I was responding to his introductory sentence..... -------The argument from inconsistent revelations, also known as the avoiding ____the wrong hell problem, is an argument against the existence of God.
From: sarge on 15 May 2010 22:53 On 16 Maj, 04:05, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Arguments can only exist within the realm of beliefs. > > If we are both standing in the rain, there is no argument that is the > case. Or is it mist rather than rain? Or am I dreaming? Or is this a movie set and the water is being sprayed and not by clouds? One person's obvious, is another person's 'not a chance'. > Seems in the US, religious affiliation is a majority vote winner. It's more like not being affiliated is a major vote loser. Not that it is a good thing however you define it.
From: bigfletch8 on 15 May 2010 23:29 On May 16, 10:53 am, sarge <greasethew...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 16 Maj, 04:05, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Arguments can only exist within the realm of beliefs. > > > If we are both standing in the rain, there is no argument that is the > > case. > > Or is it mist rather than rain? Or am I dreaming? Or is this a movie > set and the water is being sprayed and not by clouds? > One person's obvious, is another person's 'not a chance'. Precisely. So what is the point of arguing...hell or otherwise.Beliefs are 'always seeking reinforcement, or contradiction'. > > > Seems in the US, religious affiliation is a majority vote winner. > > It's more like not being affiliated is a major vote loser. No argument ;-)....same point. > > Not that it is a good thing however you define it. Demonstrate a 'good thing', and I will argue it into a 'bad thing' waiting to happen. The ultimate may be 'let's educate the world' Surely a good thing ? Of course, we will produce more people who will have the developed intelligence to destroy the planet. But also more who will have the capacity to solve the problems. And the beat goes on..... BOfL
From: Giga2 on 16 May 2010 03:04
On 16 May, 01:44, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The argument from inconsistent revelations, also known as the avoiding > the wrong hell problem, is an argument against the existence of God. > It asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many > theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and > mutually exclusive revelations. Since a person not privy to revelation > must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of > its proponent, and there is no way for a mere mortal to resolve these > conflicting claims by investigation, it is prudent to reserve one's > judgment. > > The argument is also used to demonstrate the difficulty of accepting > the existence of any one God without personal revelation. Most > arguments for the existence of God are not specific to any one > religion and could be applied to any religion with equal validity. > Acceptance of any one religion thus requires a rejection of the > others, and when faced with these competing claims in the absence of a > personal revelation, it is difficult to decide amongst them. Were a > personal revelation to be granted to a nonbeliever, the same problem > of confusion would develop in each new person the believer shares the > revelation with. > > Christians believe that Jesus is the savior of the world and the son > of God; Jews believe that he is not. Similarly, Muslims believe that > the Qur'an was divinely authored, while Jews and Christians do not. > There are many examples of such contrasting views, indeed, opposing > fundamental beliefs (schisms) exist even within each major religion. > Christianity, for example, has many subsets, not all of which are > mutually compatible. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations Isn't there an underlying assumption here that every human is spiritually the same, Maybe some 'should' Muslim (avoid alcohol pork etc) and some 'should' Christian, and some agnostic or atheist. Just because a particular person my find 'salvation' in a particular religion does that mean everyone would or even could. There are many differences between human beings, maybe the type of spirit we have (or not) can be different as well, even changable? |