You have to pity religious people who get their religion from a book.Consider the following statements:
All the evidence for [favourite god] is in [favourite holy book] which is the word of [favourite god].
Well, that isn't much good because no holy book has ever managed to convince anything like a majority of people so it can't have been written by an omniscient god. Besides, it should be manifestly obvious to anyone that no book or mere piece of writing can be proof of its own truth, not even when it claims it is, otherwise anyone could create truth merely by writing it down and saying it's true. For example, this blog is all true because I said so and I should know, I created it. Convinced?
So, no holy book alone can be proof of a god.
There is plenty of evidence for [favourite god] outside [favourite holy book] to prove what [favourite god] says in [favourite holy book] is true.
Well, that isn't much good either because any god which needs evidence outside its holy book obviously can't write a good enough book to convince people, so its power must be limited. Therefore the claims of omnipotence in the holy book must be false.
So that just about does it for all the arguments followers of any god can muster and yet they both refute the god. The book manifestly isn't enough on its own, yet having to rely on anything else refutes the claims about the god in the book.
Who'd be religious eh? No wonder religious people have such an allergy to evidence and need to rely on 'faith', i.e. pretending to know things they don't really know.
[Note to religious people: Don't let me hold you back but if you try to argue that this logic doesn't hold, you will be arguing that all the other religions are true too. Sorry about that but that's what happens when all the different religions have to use each others arguments to try to prove they are the only true religion and so the ones they've pinched the arguments from are false.]
I am quite interested in your statements, given the selection of sacred texts that you chose to represent in the image. Please note that the religions represented by the texts in your image have a wide variety of perspectives on the role of the sacred texts. Some view their text as of divine origin and without error. Others see the texts as inspired by a divine source but written by humans. Others view the text as sacred wisdom but entirely of human origin. Of course, there are other nuanced views that are not represented in that short list. In addition, the role of the text within different religions varies significantly. Not all of the religions represented by the texts in your image include a belief system that relies on the sacred text as the sole (or in some case, primary) source of spiritual insight. Furthermore, not all of the sacred texts in your image even teach that there is a god.
ReplyDeleteFor these reasons, it may be more helpful if you would consider breaking this up into separate posts, addressing each specific religion and the associated text. Otherwise, I am concerned that your argument will be lost in what appears to be broad and inaccurate generalizations about sacred texts and the world's religions.
In addition, it may be valuable for you to address the idea that some of the sacred texts represented in your image claim to contain historical truth claims that can be verified by sources outside of that text. I am not sure if it is accurate to represent followers of all religions of those texts as engaging in circulus in probando.
Finally, I do not understand the logical argument that you made when you wrote, "any god which needs evidence outside its holy book obviously can't write a good enough book to convince people, so its power must be limited. Therefore the claims of omnipotence in the holy book must be false." I am not sure if you have exhausted the possibilities here. Your critique of C.S. Lewis as building a false trichotomy with his Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument may be a critique of your quote in this post.
What you seemed to argue was:
If a god exist, then that god must want to use a holy book as the exclusive evidence of said existence. If that god did exist but did not want to use a holy book as the exclusive evidence of said existence, then the only possible explanation is that the god was not powerful enough to write such a book. Is that really the only possibility? If we are considering the possibility of the existence of a deity, it seems like quite a leap to assume that this god would only want to use a sacred text. What is your proposed evidence for or against this? I suppose that sort of god would not hae interest in the illiterate, cultures without a written tradition, infants, etc? I seem no strong argument in your post as to why the existence of a god necessitates that god choosing to write a book that convinces the majority, or that a sacred book must serve as the primary proof of the god's existence. Consider the fact that many religions have relied and some continue to rely primarily upon oral traditions or other experiential forms of spiritual insight. Still others argue that the gods are recognized in nature. What requires that their gods would want to write a book?
Even the so-called Holy Texts were at some time only oral in basis, until somebody decided to sit and commend them to a fixed media, so that the game of 'Chinese Whispers' would end, i.e. recording them onto said fixed media made them unchangeable, or permanent in content, something which had not previously been the case, and had been changing from generation to generation
ReplyDeleteRight here in Australia, we see the oral style continuing among our own indigenes, related as 'Dreamtime' stories, and many yet to be committed to hard copy, but in the meantime, continue to be embellished by the Elders with each retelling
First off, you don't address a single argument for God's existence.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, you seem completely unaware that Natural Theology is devoid of any religion. Natural Theology (Philosophy) deals with the revelation of God in nature and is not reliant on any Holy Book.
Thirdly, there are 6 billion people around the world who believe in God. The range from Christians, to Deists. The Bible (2.5 billion adherents), or the Quran (2 billion adherents) have an immense amount of persuasive power. To deny this is just odd.
When you try to define faith as "believing something they know isn't true", you really show where you are.
Why are you so full of hatred? One day you will come before God and give an account of the life you have lead. This is not something I take solace in. This is a terrible thing. Perhaps hell is eternal separation from God, which means an eternity without love. You however are already living in a world without love, I feel no happiness in this fact. The only thing I am thankful for is that your hatred has no persuasive power, which is truly ironic, as you are the one who claims that the Bible is the one that is not persuasive.
Are these arguments to be found inside or outside your holy book, and in what sense of the word "not" is addressing all argument which are either inside or outside your holy book not addressing them, please?
DeleteYour argument relies on this crucial premises:
ReplyDelete"If a Holy Book does not convince everyone, then it was not written by an omniscient being"
"any god which needs evidence outside its holy book obviously can't write a good enough book to convince people"
Neither is obvious or intuitive. Do you have any reason to suppose these premises are true?
Yep. No holy book has ever convinced everyone.
DeleteSorry if you didn't realise that.
Very amusing and entertaining, but naive and unsound argument. Too much bias towards Semitic point of view. Could be refined with a bit more logical rigor and a better understanding of the diverse religious world outside of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you do make an important point, the holy book does not have the universal reach to all of humanity. I don’t think that is the point of the text, God is within the universal reach of humanity and the text is limited to geographical reach. Or to put it another way, enlightenment or liberation is possible for all human beings. The text is important but auxiliary. Not everyone needs to be convinced by the text.
For example, in Zen teachings they burn their scriptures and destroy the idol of Buddha in the mind of the monk to reach enlightenment. You do something similar but your enlightenment is of the limited mind – fallible - and the Buddhist enlightenment, well let’s not say anything about it and leave that to the experience of the monk, who has gone beyond scripture, and who knows more than I.
Your argument has not convinced everyone, so your argument is not valid?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid your refusal to accept the obvious has no bearing on reality. Your personal approval is not required by the Universe, no matter how important you think you are nor how affronted you might be by the Universe's outrageous audacity.
Deleteit comes down to this: Your god, if you believe in one, is not possible.
ReplyDeleteThe very idea that a god would need a book to let its alleged creation know about its existence, because such a god is not immediately self-evident in the scientific observation of its own creation, is absurd. A real omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god would not be able to give free will to human beings because its will must be omnipotent. So this god would not be omnipotent, cuz there's something it can't do. There would be no room in an omnipotent god's reality for our free will. The act of free will by any sentient being in this universe proves this universe cannot have an omnipotent being. A real omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god would certainly not need a bible to prove its own existence. Existence SHOULD be evidence of a real omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god's creation. However, it's not. Therefore, as no god is evident in this universe, there is no god in this universe.
You have chosen in this instant to read these words instead of praise some god. That you HAVE this choice, proves the nonexistence of an omnipotent being. Your free will precludes such a being exists. If you believe in a god, your very existence disproves your own god's existence. Cuz if your god ain't omnipotent, he's no god. If your god allowed suffering in this world, that means it's not a god. That makes it a monster. If it were real. Thankfully it is not.
You worship a boogey man inside your head, and not an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being.
@Zach I agree. How can the so called Creator be at the same time characterized as Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent? Just the fact that there is evil and suffering in the world makes that impossible. And the concept of Satan, who should know of the creator's power, with his supposed free will, still chooses to be evil doesn't make sense... He would have to be a dumb as box of rocks to still choose evil knowing what he does... Plus why would an omnipotent being allow him to have so much influence on earth? Is it just a game to see who falls and who doesn't?
ReplyDeletePlus even if someone can somehow show the possibility of a Creator, it is a major jump to go from this Deism to a Theist position. You have to prove your "God" and prove all the other ones false.
"Thirdly, there are 6 billion people around the world who believe in God. The range from Christians, to Deists. The Bible (2.5 billion adherents), or the Quran (2 billion adherents) have an immense amount of persuasive power. To deny this is just odd. - "
ReplyDeleteThis defence of god is akin to the scatalogical joke. "Eat sh*t. 5 billion flies can't be wrong!"