Prev: Nominalism vs Realism
Next: Electron's puzzles.
From: Immortalist on 15 May 2010 20:44
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
From: sarge on 15 May 2010 21:05
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.
From: bigfletch8 on 15 May 2010 21:41
On May 16, 8:44 am, 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

A suggestion I made a while ago, is to replace the word God with the
word Life.

If you do so to the above comments, it takes on a whole new direction,
where interpretation of Life is a much more healthy pursuit.

The practical problem though,is the inherent need for most to identify
with a particular lable.

Even in politics, if you break down an individuals beliefs to single
components, as opposed to the party/religious line, you will discover
a great diversity of views, one of the components of Life, we all
celebrate in 'Nature'(another good substitute word, if you leave
'mother' out of it

BOfL.
From: panamfloyd on 15 May 2010 21:46
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!
From: bigfletch8 on 15 May 2010 22:05
On May 16, 9:05 am, 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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.

Having just been through a civil court case, self representing, I had
an even greater realization how much of our 'collective' intelligence
is sophist in nature. I was arguing with a barrister, who only last
month was arguing 'exactly' my side of an identical case.

The universal mind of man, thrives on diversity, as does nature. The
more intelligent (love 'em or hate 'em,lawyers are up there :-)
actually create the intellectual diversity on which they live.When you
are steeped in an argumentative consciousness, thats what you will do,
regardless of the subject.

It wasnt so long ago, that the church was the legal authority as it
still is in many societies.

Thank God (oops, I mean 'Life'), that is not the case here.

One great breakthrough in Aus is to be offered the opportunity to
swear on the Bible,or take the affirmation.Even while I was taking the
latter, I was conscious of the fact that the Judge may well be
religious.

A good question to atheists. If you were such a Judge, would you be
swayed if somebody chose swear on the Bible/Koran etc.

Could that be seen as an example of a mind easily swayed, and therefor
vulnerable to 'color' the facts? And of course, the converse. Would an
'affirmation taker' be seen by a religious Judge to be less credible?

Seems in the US, religious affiliation is a majority vote winner.

BOfL

BOfL

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Nominalism vs Realism
Next: Electron's puzzles.