Spenser

I've been following the debate going on at TheologyOnline.com and then being battle-royally disappointed with the pastors weak rebuttals followed by the hemorrhoid flare up of the peanut gallery over there showing there overwhelming support for a series of non-arguments. Therefore I thought some of the real arguments might be better discussed here: (Note: From Zakath's posts) Debate Here

The Argument from Confusion (AC)

This argument consists of four premises:

1. Christians are confused in that:


A. They disagree with one another about a variety of important doctrinal issues including the nature of God, God's Law (e.g. which kinds of killing are acceptable within the law), the role of sacraments, requirements for salvation, role of Church hierarchy, the place of the Jew and the nation of Israel, the sequence of end-time events, and the status of the Bible, to name a few.

B. The Bible contradicts itself on these doctrinal matters, is exceedingly unclear in many important areas, and contains errors which make it appear to be merely manmade work.

C. Different copies of the Hebrew and Greek biblical manuscripts say conflicting things. Even the biblical canon involves disputes and appears to be arbitrary.

D. There is no objective procedure for settling any of these many disputes, especially since the original manuscripts of the Bible have been lost, there is no public declaration from God that would resolve any of them.


2. If God were to exist, then he would love all Christians and want that love reciprocated. He would also strongly desire that, here on earth, Christians become aware of, and be clear about those aspects of his nature and system of governance that have importance to their lives.

3. Hence, if god were to exist, then he would prevent Christians from becoming confused in their beliefs about his nature and system of governance in ways that have importance to their lives and that interfere with them coming to love him.

4. But Christians have not been prevented from becoming confused in those ways. The forms of disagreement mentioned in premise (1), above, are examples.

Therefore, God does not exist.

Spenser

Perhaps a moderator could correct my spelling in the title of this thread???

[Done - Wyz_sub10]

NearNihil Experience

Good cut and dry Phil o' Religion stuff. No time right now for me to interject...however, let me point you to Dr. Ted Drange's "Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Non-existence of God", A.J. Matil's "Seven Mighty Blows"
and about anything else by either of these men. Your examples, from this and your other thread, seem to mock(not a bad thing) their styles of presentation.

You may find them helpful and informative in this area if you have not already encountered them.
I also have a couple of Drange's class books( I was lucky enough to get him as a professor for a year the year before he retired) , but the majority of material from those ended up in Nonbelief and Evil.

I'll wade into this one soon...just too sleepy

Spenser

Contra,

Looking forward to what you have to say. Reminder, I myself didn't write this argument, I got it from the other debate. I think it is a rather good argument that doesn't necessarily disprove God entirely, it sheds doubt on the Xian God and rationalizes the idea that the God concept is more a statement of humanity than of reality...

zorq

I haven't read the other debate, but I would guess from my experience with theists, that they may pull the free will card out of the bag to contradict this argument.

You see because men have free will and and egotistical nature, it is natural for them to interject some of their own thoughts and reasoning into the "word of God." And because God values free will he will not step in and correct the transgress of adding to or removing from the "word." So you see, it is completely natural for there to be disagreements about the bible and the nature of the word.

Of course, I have also seen some fundamentalist theists claim that the Mormon Religion isn't true because "God has the power to keep the Word of God free from corruption." Or something to that effect.

My two cents.

Spenser

This would seem like a typical theistic dodging of the actual problem. However, this is more along the lines of those theists that think atheists actually know that there is a God but choose to defy him. To me that is a rather intellectual cop out. Free will should not make it difficult for omnimax God to make issues of morality clearer so that men of free will could choose to the right path. For instance, if the bible listed the following as immoral:

Rape, Murder, Abortion, Euthanasia, Pornography, Prostitution, Theft, Etc.

...perhaps the argument from confusion wouldn't stand as Christians clearly couldn't be on two sides of an issue and continue to truly be Christians. If the bible wasn't so full of contradictions and errors, perhaps there wouldn't be nearly as many skeptics seeing as there wouldn't be as much to be skeptical about. If the bible wasn't so friggin vague just maybe it would be more difficult to interpret it so many different ways to lead to such confusion. All these things have little to do with free will, obviously a man of free will would make the correct decisions, hence not be confused, if he chose to believe in God and wanted to his bidding. He just needs to know exactly what his bidding is, and Christians don't...

NearNihil Experience

As I catch myself going to sleep at the screen...I'll make this short. I promised I'd hit back about the subject.

In short, AfCArgument from Confusion is simply stated as :

Reality:
If the Xtian God and Xtianity are as they claim to be, the way the truth and the light (read:the only true way), then there would be no dispute or quibbling over minute meta-physical details and doctrine.

Lala Land:
Since the Xtian God(read: true and only god) is good and wants for all humanity to be saved from eternal torment, He has given clear and singular knowledge through his works in history and the Bible as to what it is we all need to do to be saved from this imposed eternal torment.

A.The fact that confusion exist between not only Xtians, but through the stream of monotheists, give one adequate reason to state that it is a fact that there is confusion on the part of humanity.

There is confusion.
1.Is it God's faulty signals, or our flawed reception?
1a. If its faulty signals, then this is not the God you are describing or seeking as the Xtian God...He's not faulty.
1b. If it is our flawed perceptions, then tough luck being confused....hop on the next religion you find, hope its the right one and stick to it like a leach to ensure lack of confusion and assured salvation.

That Confusion exists gives on adequate reason to question the existence of a God with Xtian God properties...However, this is not adequate to deny the existence of a God with some other qualities.

2.Is the confusion because of God or because there is no God?
2a. If God exists, and is responsible for the Confusion (and this is within his power), then Xtians are wrong about what God really wants and how he is going about it. Again, Xtains are wrong about their God according to their own definition.
2b. If the confusion exists because there is no God, then no big metaphysical deal...chalk it up to human nature of violence and delusion.

Xtains seem to want their God to fit into the parameters they choose. Hello...if it is God He makes all the parameters, he doesn't fit to our mold. This seems to be an unspoken or unacknowledged denial of God's independance from thought.

It also proves my point that people can agree over the same thing until they start to actually talk about it.

later

sound-of-the-trumpet

Well, now, this is something. I must say that I respectfully dissagree. I think that God has perserved His word, exactly. and that it can be found (as far as English has to do with it) in the King James Autherized Bible of 1611!
You all must read:
* "The King James VersionDefended" by Edward F. Hills.
* "Defendeding the King James Version- four fold superiority" by D.A. Wait.
* "Revision Revised" by Dean John William Burgon.
* "Myths About Modern Versions" by David W. Cloud
* "Missing From Modern Bible Versions- The Dark Secret" by Jack Moorman.
* "The Christians HandBook of Manuscript Evidence" by Peter S. Ruckman.
* "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger.
I could post more, for I have at least 80 books on the issue and at least 20 other publications such as, pamphlets, booklets, papers, etc.

Jobar

Sigh.

S-o-t-t, please take your arguments to the correct forum- you want our Biblical Criticism & History room.

I'm sure they will be delighted to have you correct their misconceptions about the Bible, OK?

SignOfTheCross

That's what happens when Christians take it upon themselves to interpret the Bible. This right was given to the Church (i.e. Catholic), not the lay population, so this premise is merely an argument against evangelicalism, not Christianity.

All of what you wrote above is in your own opinion. I would say the Bible doesn't contradict itself on these positions, the exceedingly unclear doctrinal matters are not exceedingly unclear, and the errors of which make it appear to be manmade work are not errors, nor is the work manmade. So this premise is biased.

The different copies of the Hebrew and Greek biblical manuscripts are translations prone to grammatical errors, however, no theological point is lost. The canon was *officially* closed at Trent in 1546 and mimicked the canons settled at Carthage and Hippo.

The objective proceduce for settling disputes are called synods (or councils). Therefore this premise is one against evangelicalism, not Christianity.

The system of governance is called the Catholic Church.

Yes, this is correct, which is why He left us with a Church.

However, the premises are faulty.