How to Invalidate Revelationist Religion?


How would one go about proving that all revelation is invalid or illogical. There should be only 3 main points that one should contend with and validate or invalidate. These points should be proven or solved in order of hierarchy, meaning if you can disprove the first question there's no need to go on to third. But, if you disprove the third question, your claim of invalidation needs to go up 1 level back to the second question. So, here's my idea of it:

1. Question of God's existence. Of course if God doesn't exist, then revelation makes no sense. The cosmological argument isn't really debatable though in my opinion. Anything infinite just seem like a cop out, so no infinite regression. Also what is physical can't be the only form there is since there is such a thing as metaphysics, which I don't think is the fruit of physics, so no universe as necessary existence. What do you think?

2. Question of whether God is personal or impersonal (Spinozan). If it makes more sense that God is impersonal, doesn't care about the workings of you and me, then revelation makes no sense since it wouldn't be on God's to do list and we are just too insignificant to have had experience revelation. This for me is the big leap. Many will say Pascal's wager, but again this is a cop out. I believe this is where faith needs to come in as a choice.

3. Lastly, if we were to get an affirmative answer to the first 2 questions, then the next question would be which revelation is true? This question has 3 points of contention:
a. Do you believe the claim of Jesus as how the Christians describe it? If the Trinity is logically coherent, the person of Jesus is provably the Christ of the Old Testament, if the person of Jesus clearly is divine (instead of simply wise or gifted by God), then Christianity is true.
b. Do you believe the claim that God's teachings is preserved only in the Torah or the Old Testament and nothing else? If you believe through all the history of Moses and the Israelites that all his teachings are poured into the Torah and preserved from then on by the Rabbis, then Judaism is true.
c. Do you believe in the message delivered by Muhammad? The question is whether he is trustworthy, whether his claims make sense or at least doesn't betray logic, and whether the Qur'an is preserved to this day. If all is provably true, then Islam is true.
Now, if all three are actually disproven or at least doubted, then you would need to go back up and contend with question 1 and 2. You can't claim to be an atheist because you object to 1 ethical perscription in religion A or B. You haven't done your homework. If 1 of the three is convincing to you, then you should start believing.

What do you think? Is this a good way of thinking about it? Consider this an idea to ponder.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Am I Ready? - Looking Through The Problem with The Concept of The Unconscious Mind

Am I ready to live alone? Am I ready to be married? Am I ready to have a child? Am I ready to go on to live the next chapter of my life? These are common questions we all have. Its an interesting one.   What is ready? I've heard some understand readiness as the mastery of the situation such that entails knowing how to handle every variable possible. That is not exactly what they said, but that's the heart of it. This to me seems inhumane. Man is fallible and imperfect. If this is the standard, if this is your understanding, the question becomes inane since one may never reach this stage, just to be able to progress in life. I've also heard many versions of this assertion: "You won't understand unless you've gone through it" or "Nothing prepares you for what it actually takes". So, my question is how can you really answer the readiness question with "Yes, I am ready" and to not lie? If we were to assume these assertions, mainly from the ...
Read more

Am I Enough? - Looking Through The Problem with The Concept on Identity or The Self

Am I enough? What should I do to change? Should I change at all? If I change, who or even what am I? All interesting questions. Who am I? What am I? I don't believe we can understand ourselves until we define our borders and limitations. Who we are should start at who we are not. If I were to understand who I'm not, I would first assert that I'm not him or her. That seems simple enough. What is harder though is who I am in myself. Who is my person outside of my body or the man in the mirror? What is my Self? The Self, understood by Carl Jung, is the sum of the conscious, unconscious, and all possible iterations of the personality of man. Every person is in a state of change. Man in his infancy is not the same as his 20 year-old self, though he is still him and not one of his brothers. We can still be different than other people. But, we do change in a few elements within our possible personality make-up. This should create the necessary personality functions to accommodate ...
Read more