Topic: Arg 1 for Atheism: The Failure of Revelation (Read 4841 times)

Copernicus · « **Reply #20 on:** March 05, 2006, 12:54:49 AM »

Sorry to have neglected this for the past several days. I've been away at a robotics conference in Salt Lake City, where I was able to take in a little of the local mormon culture. Mormons certainly have a lot to say about revelation, and they've worked out a system for distinguishing correct from incorrect revelations--a system not unlike that of many other religions. That is, a church hierarchy has the job of separating the infallible truth from all the false revelations and lies.

Zenless responded appropriately to Elisha, as far as I'm concerned, and his point about the skewed temporality of revelation is also a good one. I've asked sntjohnny and others why God seemed to change his approach to humanity with the birth of Jesus during the period of the early Roman Empire. Why then and not earlier? Or later? Did something happen that he didn't anticipate? I don't really expect any of the Christians here to come up with an explanation that makes sense, but the question is out there.

Elisha · « **Reply #21 on:** March 27, 2006, 04:23:59 PM »

Welcome to the discussion and I apologize for the late response. I'll be checking responses every two days, then going home to work on a response (for I don't have internet at home) and then post it whenever I get online either at the library or a wireless network. So, the responders will have to patiently wait for a response which will take roughly 5 days to post.

Quote

This is not the argument as I heard it.

Copernicus' main point in the thread I originally responded to was,

"The main reason that people come to believe in gods is not revelation, but tradition"

He had that linked to the thread-title, "Argument for atheism". So, put them together and you get "An argument for atheism is "the main reason that people come to believe in gods is not revelation, but tradition".

You typed,

" I heard is that gods are generally claimed to be universal, whereas revelations of specific and often mutually exclusive gods eminate from specific central localities"

This is pretty much the same thing I got from Cop, which agrees with my formulation of his post into an argument. I typed,

"P1: If people believe in Gods through tradition, therefore God is likely to not exist (Cop's quote above).
P2: People believe in Gods through tradition (I disagree with this, but allow it).
C: Therefore, God is likely to not exist."

This was using his wording. Using yours in line with the title of this thread, I would formulate it as thus:

P1: If revelations of specific and often mutually exclusive gods eminate from specific central localities, then it is likely God does not exist.
P2: Revelations of specific and often mutually exclusive gods eminate from specific central localities.
C: Therefore, it is likely God does not exist.

The argument is flawed (like Cop's), because it jumps to the conclusion at the get-go. The question is: why can't a God that is universal reveal Himself only at a specific central locality? Since when does God's being universal therefore necessarily entail (as you type) "revelation of this same god to take place from multiple diverse locales"?

I see no reason why a timeless, omnipotent God can't simply choose to not reveal himself in such ways that revelation takes place from multiple diverse locales. How does this lead one to conclude that therefore God is likely to not exist. With all due respect, the argument just doesn't add up.

Maybe, the key word in the argument is "reasonable". You typed, "it would be reasonable to expect". Reasonable for who? What if it's not reasonable for me or any of the other Christians posting here at sntjohnny's? This argument is not only obviously fallacious, but seemingly subjective also.

Let me stop playing into the argument, doing some granting (which it needs), and then responding, though. Christianity posits one Jesus of Nazareth being born of a woman to ultimately grow and sacrifice himself for the sins of manking. This entails God's revealing Himself from a specific central locality. I'm sorry, but I see no problem with God doing this and then spreading the word from the location.

I thank you for the well-thought out response to my post and await another one. Talk to you later.

-Elisha

Copernicus · « **Reply #22 on:** April 04, 2006, 03:44:11 PM »

Quote from: Elisha

The argument is flawed (like Cop's), because it jumps to the conclusion at the get-go. The question is: why can't a God that is universal reveal Himself only at a specific central locality? Since when does God's being universal therefore necessarily entail (as you type) "revelation of this same god to take place from multiple diverse locales"?

Elisha, you restated the argument from a completely different perspective. Let's try to get it back on track. If gods are just spirit beings that look after specific human tribes, a popular idea in ancient times, then it is reasonable to suppose that they reveal themselves just to the special tribe or group that they render services to in return for worship. If the god or gods in question view all humans on equal terms, then it is unreasonable to assume that they (or it) needs to confine themselves (itself) in this manner. Why would the Christian god choose Jews over any other group of humans as the "chosen people"? Why not the Zulus, the Mayans, or the Japanese? Why not give revelations to widely distributed groups simultaneously, especially if worship from all of humanity is desired? The question is not whether a god COULD confine revelation to just a small group. It is how one explains the rather blatant discrimination against human beings as a species. It seems clear to me that Yahweh's behavior is perfectly explainable if one assumes that he was just another false god invented by a specific ethnic group that needed divine protection from outside threats. In the absence of a better explanation, this motivates one to think of revealed gods as inventions of the human groups that use them for special favors and protections. Do you have a better explanation?

Quote

I see no reason why a timeless, omnipotent God can't simply choose to not reveal himself in such ways that revelation takes place from multiple diverse locales. How does this lead one to conclude that therefore God is likely to not exist. With all due respect, the argument just doesn't add up.

It adds up quite reasonably, once you actually address the argument made and not your revision of it. This is not a question of whether an omnipotent god CAN limit revelation but why an omnipotent god WOULD limit revelation. My explanation is the most plausible one--that different ethnic groups invent gods to suit their special needs. The argument is that the skewed pattern of revelation only makes sense if gods take sides in human ethnic rivalries--a rather silly idea in this day and age.

Quote

Maybe, the key word in the argument is "reasonable". You typed, "it would be reasonable to expect". Reasonable for who? What if it's not reasonable for me or any of the other Christians posting here at sntjohnny's? This argument is not only obviously fallacious, but seemingly subjective also.

You are correct to focus on the word "reasonable". Reasonable for humans in the modern context.

Quote

Let me stop playing into the argument, doing some granting (which it needs), and then responding, though. Christianity posits one Jesus of Nazareth being born of a woman to ultimately grow and sacrifice himself for the sins of manking. This entails God's revealing Himself from a specific central locality. I'm sorry, but I see no problem with God doing this and then spreading the word from the location.

I suggest that you see no problem with this mainly because you see yourself as part of the "chosen people" that your god protects, guides, and otherwise confers favors on. Certainly, those who did not live in the early Roman Empire might wonder why they were left out. The Chinese and Indians, for example, had very advanced cultures in more remote locations. How come God put Jesus way over in the eastern Mediterranean area, where they would be so unlikely to learn about how to obtain salvation? Is God racist?

Deep Thought · « **Reply #23 on:** April 04, 2006, 04:50:42 PM »

Certainly, the problem of isolated revelation is troublesome. Why just the Jews? I wondered that for a long time and couldn't come up with an answer. Maybe he meant to contrast the Jews and the Gentiles or something like that, but...

...in any case...

...I don't presume that this complication erases all possibility of God's existance. As Copernicus says, it merely makes the matter more difficult to swallow. But I stated in another thread that the behavior of an omniscient being is impossible to confidently predict or critique, so...

...I'll simply end this by saying it's confusing, but not necessarily unsolvable. It is possible for such an "isolated-revelationist" god to exist, and thus it is possible such an entity would have its own reasons for doing things that way. Whether or not those reasons make sense to us is of lesser consequence. More faith should be placed in the tangible realms of material and historical evidence than in pondering the behavior patterns of deities.

Copernicus · « **Reply #24 on:** April 05, 2006, 02:41:54 PM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

Certainly, the problem of isolated revelation is troublesome. Why just the Jews? I wondered that for a long time and couldn't come up with an answer. Maybe he meant to contrast the Jews and the Gentiles or something like that, but...

Hold on. Don't dismiss this conundrum so quickly, because it is really fundamental to my argument. I want you to come up with a better answer than the one I have provided. Let me spell it out more clearly:

1) False revelations are geographically skewed.

(Since false revelations derive from individual humans and groups of humans, it is extremely improbable that different isolated groups will come up with the same set of false revelations. That is, we expect revelations about false gods to spread from a single geographical point of origin and to be linked to a specific group of humans.)

2) The Yahweh cult has followed the pattern of false revelations.

(That is, it sprang from a single geographical locus, and it was associated with a specific human tribal group.

3) There is no a priori reason why a non-tribal god or gods should prefer one human group over another.

(This fact has troubled you, but you just shrug it off. God's tribal preference cries out for explanation, since we know why false gods are depicted as having a tribal preference. Yahweh comes out looking like a false god on this one.)

4) The Christian God is a non-tribal god.

(It does not favor jews over gentiles, despite the opposite impression given by the Old Testament. In principle, all humans are supposed to worship the Christian god, and all humans are offered the same benefits in exchange for that worship.)

My argument is that the Christian god was nothing more than a false tribal god that evolved into an ecumenical god over the centuries. That explains the original preference espoused by Yahweh for Jews. The Christian god follows the pattern of false revelation in that it arose out of a religious singularity--a religious Big Bang so to speak.

Quote

...in any case...

...I don't presume that this complication erases all possibility of God's existance. As Copernicus says, it merely makes the matter more difficult to swallow. But I stated in another thread that the behavior of an omniscient being is impossible to confidently predict or critique, so...

I'm not sure I follow you here. You admit that God's existence is rendered "more difficult to swallow" by this argument. That satisfies my point that the argument favors atheistic belief over theistic belief. I have explicitly rejected the claim that this is an argument against the possibility of the existence of all gods. It is an argument about what is plausible, not what is possible. Your cavil seems to be that the fundamental ineffability of your putative "omniscient" god is a kind of "Get Out of Conundrum Free" card. You cannot use the principle of inexplicability to explain anything. In reality, you are still stuck with coming up with reasons to believe in the particular god or gods at issue. Why should we credit the existence of this god over other logical possibilities?

Quote

...I'll simply end this by saying it's confusing, but not necessarily
unsolvable....

No, it is not confusing. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for skewed revelation if one accepts the proposition that gods do not exist. Everyone knows that false revelations spread from geographical singularities. What is confusing is why an ecumenical (non-racist) god would choose to follow the exact same pattern as false revelations in spreading knowledge of its existence. It is obvious that an omnipotent god could find some way to give all humans an equal chance at discovering the path to salvation. Confusion arises when one tries to justify belief in an omnipotent god that is not an equal-opportunity god. There needs to be some explanation better than an ineffability defense as to why this god is not a purely imaginary god.

Quote

It is possible for such an "isolated-revelationist" god to exist,
and thus it is possible such an entity would have its own reasons for doing
things that way. Whether or not those reasons make sense to us is of lesser
consequence. More faith should be placed in the tangible realms of material
and historical evidence than in pondering the behavior patterns of
deities.

I could not disagree more. Faith sustains belief in all the false gods out there. Therefore, it should NOT be used to sustain belief in any particular god. All you are saying here is that you concede my argument. The "isolated-revelationist god" is a possibility, but an extremely unlikely possibility. The best defense of this belief that you can come up with is that we should NOT to expect to understand the motives of such a god (even though scripture is chock full of such explanations). However, this defense motivates belief in false gods just as strongly as it motivates belief in true gods. In other words, it is intellectually bankrupt.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #25 on:** April 05, 2006, 03:52:13 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus

Quote from: Deep Thought
Certainly, the problem of isolated revelation is troublesome. Why just the Jews? I wondered that for a long time and couldn't come up with an answer. Maybe he meant to contrast the Jews and the Gentiles or something like that, but...

Hold on. Don't dismiss this conundrum so quickly, because it is really fundamental to my argument.

I wasn't dismissing it, merely thinking out loud: "If said God really exists and that is what he did, maybe this is why... BUT..." That last word was supposed to convey skepticism in my own consideration, but perhaps you missed it.

Quote

I want you to come up with a better answer than the one I have provided. Let me spell it out more clearly:

1) False revelations are geographically skewed.

(Since false revelations derive from individual humans and groups of humans, it is extremely improbable that different isolated groups will come up with the same set of false revelations. That is, we expect revelations about false gods to spread from a single geographical point of origin and to be linked to a specific group of humans.)

Agreed.

Quote

2) The Yahweh cult has followed the pattern of false revelations.

(That is, it sprang from a single geographical locus, and it was associated with a specific human tribal group.

This is also true...

Quote

3) There is no a priori reason why a non-tribal god or gods should prefer one human group over another.

(This fact has troubled you, but you just shrug it off. God's tribal preference cries out for explanation, since we know why false gods are depicted as having a tribal preference. Yahweh comes out looking like a false god on this one.)

Again, I did not "shrug it off." I merely place it in a lower plane of priority than the more important matter of finding out whether (a) god(s) exist or not via physical/historical evidence, since such matters are more reasonable to ponder than the behavior of (a) presumably omniscient being(s). The fact that Yahweh comes off looking false here is indeed the reason I find this troublesome, but I am careful to differentiate between "looking" false and actually "being" false. In other words, I'm giving Yahweh the benefit of a very small doubt.

Quote

4) The Christian God is a non-tribal god.

(It does not favor jews over gentiles, despite the opposite impression given by the Old Testament. In principle, all humans are supposed to worship the Christian god, and all humans are offered the same benefits in exchange for that worship.)

My argument is that the Christian god was nothing more than a false tribal god that evolved into an ecumenical god over the centuries. That explains the original preference espoused by Yahweh for Jews. The Christian god follows the pattern of false revelation in that it arose out of a religious singularity--a religious Big Bang so to speak.

That does indeed seem like the most likely scenario. Which is why the doubt-benefit is small.

Quote

I'm not sure I follow you here. You admit that God's existence is rendered "more difficult to swallow" by this argument.

I take this opportunity to further admit that it is made MUCH more difficult to swallow.

Quote

That satisfies my point that the argument favors atheistic belief over theistic belief. I have explicitly rejected the claim that this is an argument against the possibility of the existence of all gods. It is an argument about what is plausible, not what is possible. Your cavil seems to be that the fundamental ineffability of your putative "omniscient" god is a kind of "Get Out of Conundrum Free" card. You cannot use the principle of inexplicability to explain anything. In reality, you are still stuck with coming up with reasons to believe in the particular god or gods at issue. Why should we credit the existence of this god over other logical possibilities?

My only point is that it makes the God confusing, but not impossible. I have little inclination to believe it, I'm just trying to consider the matter thoroughly.

If I were to be brutally honest and speak my mind freely, I'd have to say it looks like a compound word that starts with "bull" and rhymes with "it." That said, I don't want to pre-set my mind against this particular God before I have a chance to thoroughly examine all evidence for or against him that I can possibly find, so I cannot allow myself to prematurely cry "false!" because of a complication that does not entirely wipe out this God's possibility of existence.

In other words, I'm not trying to credit this God above any others, I'm just trying to avoid chucking him away before I've had a proper look at him.

Quote

No, it is not confusing.

I mean that from the perspective of the God's alleged behavior being hypothetically real: it's confusing behavior, but not necessarily without rhyme or reason. It may only be that said rhyme and said reason are a little more difficult to spot than we would like...

Quote

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for skewed revelation if one accepts the proposition that gods do not exist.

...Which is a completely different, although infinitely less confusing, hypothetical assumption.

Quote

Everyone knows that false revelations spread from geographical singularities. What is confusing is why an ecumenical (non-racist) god would choose to follow the exact same pattern as false revelations in spreading knowledge of its existence. It is obvious that an omnipotent god could find some way to give all humans an equal chance at discovering the path to salvation. Confusion arises when one tries to justify belief in an omnipotent god that is not an equal-opportunity god. There needs to be some explanation better than an ineffability defense as to why this god is not a purely imaginary god.

It is only a defense of my own consideration: I use this argument to justify why I don't completely dismiss this god on the basis of this argument alone.

Quote

I could not disagree more. Faith sustains belief in all the false gods out there. Therefore, it should NOT be used to sustain belief in any particular god.

Mayhap a better word to use would have been "trust." More "trust" should be placed in physical evidence than in consideration of how an allegedly omniscient being thinks and acts.

That said, non-physical evidence, mainly dealing with how we would reasonably expect (a) god(s) to act, CAN be used. The thrust is that it only makes a god or gods more or less likely, not impossible. Thus I do not entirely dismiss them. Do you follow?

Quote

All you are saying here is that you concede my argument.

Yes indeed, that is what I say.

Quote

The "isolated-revelationist god" is a possibility, but an extremely unlikely possibility. The best defense of this belief that you can come up with is that we should NOT to expect to understand the motives of such a god (even though scripture is chock full of such explanations). However, this defense motivates belief in false gods just as strongly as it motivates belief in true gods. In other words, it is intellectually bankrupt.

'Tis only meant to motivate consideration, not belief. I'm not arguing in favor of a God I don't even believe in, I'm just thinking from two different angles.

rareairpug · « **Reply #26 on:** April 05, 2006, 08:46:34 PM »

Quote

Copernicus wrote:
Deep Thought wrote:
Certainly, the problem of isolated revelation is troublesome. Why just the Jews? I wondered that for a long time and couldn't come up with an answer. Maybe he meant to contrast the Jews and the Gentiles or something like that, but...

Hold on. Don't dismiss this conundrum so quickly, because it is really fundamental to my argument.

I wasn't dismissing it, merely thinking out loud: "If said God really exists and that is what he did, maybe this is why... BUT..." That last word was supposed to convey skepticism in my own consideration, but perhaps you missed it.

It is difficult for me to see any merit in dismissing the existence of God or a god based on its actions. For example, Religion A reports "God" as doing so and so. Religion B records "God" as doing a bunch of different stuff. I think that Religion B's god is much more rational and logical. So, that must be the real god, right? Not really. All I've done is determined which story is more believable or likable in my opinion. That doesn't prove anything.

Now, if we confirm that the events reported by Religion A are true and the stories from Religion B are false, we would be compelled to believe in Religion A, even if we didn't understand the actions of God in that context. Correct? Well, I would be anyways. Point being, judging a possible "god" based on what you think of its actions is no real test for truth. In fact, I wouldn't expect to understand everything God does. After all, he's supposed to be a lot smarter than I am, right?

Deep Thought, I think you are right when you say:

Quote

More faith should be placed in the tangible realms of material and historical evidence than in pondering the behavior patterns of deities.

Elisha · « **Reply #27 on:** April 06, 2006, 01:02:15 PM »

Copernicus says that I restated his argument from a completely different perspective, which may be likely. Since I'm typing this up off-line and can't look up previous posts, I'll have to take his word for it that I did this and apologize at this present time until I have the time to review the whole thread.

Cop further elaborates and sums up his entire argument with one question: "Why would the christian god choose Jews over any other group of humans as the "chosen people"? To be honest with everyone, the argument I had originally thought Cop was intending is more forceful than this. My reasons:

1. First, as I usually do, let us grant the entire argument. What results? Not a God that is likely to not exist. The conclusion is a million miles from non-existence! All that results is that we have a racist God. Now, I'm not buttering up the conclusion, because I don't like it one bit if the argument is granted, but my point is simple: non-existence is not implied to one degree and so atheism is not furthered to one degree.

2. Copernicus jumps far-reaching conclusions. He goes from "I don't know how such a God can choose the Jews over any other group" to "therefore, God is racist". First off, God being racist or discriminatory is blown out of the water after reading Romans 10:12,

"For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile -- the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him..."

I don't see the Christian God as being racist or discriminatory just because He calls the Jews his "chosen people" while at the same time loving and blessing all others just the same. Surely, someone of Cop's intelligence can see that calling God a racist or discriminatory God because of this is a jump to conclusion. I'll send Johnny a PM and ask for him to reply here and explain why God considers the Jews his chosen people, because I can't explain why... my biblical knowledge has its easy limits. All I know is that Copernicus' conclusion is pretty far-reaching due to various scripture pointing towards God loving all of creation the same. Plus, all (even the Jews) attain salvation the same way). Perhaps God is using the Jews to fulfill a plan which would therefore give them the name "chosen people".

All in all, the question values an answer, though the conclusion Cop reaches values a good bit more explanation. If I had only enough money to put one of my kids through college and picked one kid over the others, would I be seen as discriminatory or racist in any way? Surely not! In the same sense as God calling the Jews His "chosen people", I would consider my child the one I chose to pursue a goal that I see as attainable by only him.

-Elisha

Deep Thought · « **Reply #28 on:** April 06, 2006, 04:03:07 PM »

Quote from: Elisha

Cop further elaborates and sums up his entire argument with one question: "Why would the christian god choose Jews over any other group of humans as the "chosen people"?

That was only one layer of Copernicus's argument. The other part is that the Yahweh Elohim religion originated with one people in one isolated geographic area, and spread from there. ALL religions do that. He's saying it's acting like a false religion.

Quote

First off, God being racist or discriminatory is blown out of the water after reading Romans 10:12,

"For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile -- the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him..."

Further, Copernicus stated that it looks like a tribal religion that evolved into a universal religion over time, but started as a tribal religion nonetheless.

All of this is to say that Cop was not "summing up his entire argument" with that statement, only calling attention to a certain aspect of it.

Elisha · « **Reply #29 on:** April 06, 2006, 06:36:48 PM »

If Deep Thought is correct, then Copernicus needs to explain himself here. He accused me of misrepresenting his position when he typed,

"you restated the argument from a completely different perspective"

Deep Thought types,

"The other part [of Cop's argument] is that the Yahweh Elohim religion originated with one people in one isolated geographic area, and spread from there. ALL religions do that."

This is exactly what I thought Cop was originally saying, but then he told me I "restated his argument from a completely different perspective". Which one is it, Copernicus? Am I misrepresenting your position, which Deep Thought agrees with me on? Do you have two points you're making here while telling me that you have only one? You're confusing me.

Copernicus · « **Reply #30 on:** April 08, 2006, 05:41:07 PM »

Quote from: Elisha

If Deep Thought is correct, then Copernicus needs to explain himself here. He accused me of misrepresenting his position when he typed,

"you restated the argument from a completely different perspective"

Elisha, you restated the argument as a logical argument that revelation necessarily takes place in more than one locale. I never said or implied that. In fact, I have taken pains to deny it. Go back to the rest of the paragraph--after the first sentence that you keep repeating. Address the remarks that follow that sentence if you wish to continue the discussion.

Elisha · « **Reply #31 on:** April 08, 2006, 07:55:06 PM »

Copernicus, I've already responded to what you considered is your actual argument. A response to my refutation is welcome.

Quote

Elisha, you restated the argument as a logical argument that revelation necessarily takes place in more than one locale. I never said or implied that.

I'm not the only one who thought you were implying this. Deep Thought typed that you had two parts to your argument (something you didn't respond to him about), while you're telling me there is just one.

Either way, as my last post showed, it's easily refuted.

Copernicus · « **Reply #32 on:** April 09, 2006, 04:50:21 PM »

Quote from: Elisha

Quote
Elisha, you restated the argument as a logical argument that revelation necessarily takes place in more than one locale. I never said or implied that.

I'm not the only one who thought you were implying this. Deep Thought typed that you had two parts to your argument (something you didn't respond to him about), while you're telling me there is just one.

Actually, I think that Deep Thought understood my argument much better than you. At least, he was able to paraphrase it more accurately. He did not construe it to be a purely deductive argument, as you have, and he tried to point out some aspects of the argument that you have ignored. I'm not using these arguments to prove that God does not exist. I'm using them to argue that belief in the existence of gods (and especially the Christian God) is unreasonable. You seem unable to grasp the distinction.

Author Topic: Arg 1 for Atheism: The Failure of Revelation (Read 4841 times)