Mapping the world's opinions

Inconsistent Revelations

Since theologians and the faithful have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations, it is unlikely that God exists.

Proponents

Context

This argument informally states that no particular theology or version of God is believable, since arguments for the existence of God apply generically to many religions.

The Argument

The argument for the existence of God known as Pascal's Wager states that nonbelievers should change their minds even if only because of precautionary reasons. One common reply is that given the proliferation of different religions, it is extremely unlikely that any one will bet on the right God. This is one instance of the argument from inconsistent revelations at work. There's an enormous variety of religions and denominations within them, many of whose claims are logically incompatible with one another. The argument from inconsistent revelations does not intend to be a deductive syllogism for the nonexistence of God, but rather a probabilistic argument. From the existence of multiple incompatible faiths it can be argued that probably no deities exist (or that they do not care for humanity). Otherwise it would imply that they have miserably failed at establishing a clearly epistemologically superior religious tradition.

Counter arguments

Enter the counter arguments here ...

Premises

Enter the formal premises of the argument here ...

Rejecting the premises

Enter the technical rejections of the premises here ...

References

Content references here ...

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Explore the next argument

This page was last edited on Monday, 27 Aug 2018 at 00:08 UTC