The only difference between religions.

[paradox]

You forgot the logical possibility that they all could be wrong.

Disagree because I think first cause (of the universe) is logically necessary...

If first cause is necessary then God (omnipotent creator) exists.
If God exists then his revelation must be true.

Well, that God is only the God for a subset of scriptures and thus a subset of religions.

If God is infallible then the scriptures must be entirely correct and true.
Otherwise God is not God because it's contradicts it's omnibenevolent nature.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

If God is infallible then the scriptures must be entirely correct and true.
Otherwise God is not God because it's contradicts it's omnibenevolent nature.

You treat that if as settled. It is not if it is an if.

 

[paradox]

You treat that if as settled. It is not if it is an if.

Yes, it's an "IF", hence why I asked that we must first agree on whether God is infallible or not.
Otherwise if we don't agree then you don't believe God exists because God is by definition omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and it's existence is necessary.
Otherwise if you modify the definition of a God to describe God which you believe exists then we are talking either about deity or a natural thing and not a God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, it's an "IF", hence why I asked that we must first agree on whether God is infallible or not.
Otherwise if we don't agree then you don't believe God exists because God is by definition omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and it's existence is necessary.
Otherwise if you modify the definition of a God to describe God which you believe exists then we are talking either about deity or a natural thing and not a God.

Well, that is theology. I do that differently, so to me I have faith that God is somewhat epistemologically fair. It is a variant of Rene Descartes.
Otherwise I don't do rationalism on God.

 

[firedragon]

The question was "Why can't scriptures be contradictory and right?" therefore we are talking about the word of God.
We both believe that God is infallible, ex. God does not not lie, therefore fallacy of composition does not apply here because this would prove God wrong on all contradictions points.
Otherwise if God is fallible, just a little bit (not necessarily entirely) then he is not God.

Do we agree that God is infallible?

See, lets say two scriptures prove that one is wrong because both are contradicting because the premise is "God is infallible", there could be other areas where they agree.

For example, Book 1 and Book 2 could be contradicting when it comes to person ABC, while agreeing on the fundamental teaching of theology.

That is why, contradictory scriptures can also be correct.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

Disagree because I think first cause (of the universe) is logically necessary...

If first cause is necessary then God (omnipotent creator) exists.
If God exists then his revelation must be true.


If God is infallible then the scriptures must be entirely correct and true.
Otherwise God is not God because it's contradicts it's omnibenevolent nature.

Even if the universe requires an omnipotent creator, it does not speak to the veracity of any particular scripture. You seem to entertain the idea that, of the variety of scriptures available, that they conflict in some or many ways, and therefore, one or more of these scriptures may be wrong, either in whole or in part. If it is possible for one to be incorrect, it is possible for all to be incorrect, logically speaking. I'm not taking a position on the veracity of any of them here, simply fleshing out your logical argument.

If an infallible omnipotent creator is necessary as the first cause of the universe, there is nothing that requires such entity to provide any revelation, from a logical standpoint. If some scriptures are not true revelations, then none may be true revelation, from a thought experiment standpoint.

 

[paradox]

See, lets say two scriptures prove that one is wrong because both are contradicting because the premise is "God is infallible", there could be other areas where they agree.

For example, Book 1 and Book 2 could be contradicting when it comes to person ABC, while agreeing on the fundamental teaching of theology.

That is why, contradictory scriptures can also be correct.

Book1 and Book2 both lead to God, but if Book1 says not to believe Book2 then the issue is that a person ABC is forced to make a choice on which book to believe, because God is infallible and person ABC will now seek truth.

If an infallible omnipotent creator is necessary as the first cause of the universe, there is nothing that requires such entity to provide any revelation, from a logical standpoint.

Agree, but the fact is that scriptures (revelations about God) do exist since ever, it goes even beyond discovery of a letter, ex. oral tradition.
So the question then is, why do scriptures exist if not by God's will?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
So the question then is, why do scriptures exist if not by God's will?

That takes God for granted. It ends in circular reasoning.

 

[Hawkins]

In my understanding it is only different techniques within the different religions/spiritual practice that are different. Like in How to get in to Heaven or how to realize Nirvana.

So why are people so protective of their belief? Saying "my belief is the right one"
But when looking at the spiritual aspects of all religions, they seek something similar.

Wrong speculation.

First, you are somehow blinded to fail to speculate on how a truth (any truth) is conveyed through humans. The exclusive way for truth to convey among humans is through the process of faith in human testimonies. For example. the death tolls of covid-19 have been listed on a daily basis for more than 2 years now. Which day's figure is ever made evidenced to you (or 99.99%) humans. It's none. You choose to believe those figures are correct or not. It is so because those figures are in the form of human testimonies from those small groups (extremely small amounts of humans) responsible for counting and collecting data, then for the majority to choose to believe or disbelieve. This is how our reality operates.

Second, all left is which religion (for the sake of argument let's assume that God is true) is more valid in terms of human testimonies.

 

[firedragon]

if Book1 says not to believe Book2

Thats something you just came up with just to argue.

So thanks for engaging. I shall withdraw from this discussion.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

If an infallible omnipotent creator is necessary as the first cause of the universe, there is nothing that requires such entity to provide any revelation, from a logical standpoint. If some scriptures are not true revelations, then none may be true revelation, from a thought experiment standpoint.

Slippery Slope. It's a logically fallacious argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Slippery Slope. It's a logically fallacious argument.

Please flesh that out.

 

[firedragon]

Please flesh that out.

Hmm.

Lets say I tell you that if one scripture is false, all else could be false, that is the definition of a slippery slope.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm.

Lets say I tell you that if one scripture is false, all else could be false, that is the definition of a slippery slope.

Could is not a slippery slope to me. That requires will in a sense as I understand slippery slope.

 

[MikeF]

Agree, but the fact is that scriptures (revelations about God) do exist since ever, it goes even beyond discovery of a letter, ex. oral tradition.
So the question then is, why do scriptures exist if not by God's will?

As a thought experiment, can you not imagine any other way that all these different scriptures exist, other than by the will of an omnipotent creator? You have conceded that some, if not all but one, can be wrong. Those you considered wrong must have come into existence in some fashion, or in a variety of fashions other than from an omnipotent creator. Conclusion then is that it is possible that every scripture is derived through one of these means other than revelation from the omnipotent creator.

Why do you believe false scriptures exist?

 

[Clara Tea]

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELIGIONS:

In my understanding it is only different techniques within the different religions/spiritual practice that are different. Like in How to get in to Heaven or how to realize Nirvana.

So why are people so protective of their beliefs? Saying "my belief is the right one"
But when looking at the spiritual aspects of all religions, they seek something similar.

You'd think that the wrong guys would all get together and change (joke).

Both the Christian religion and the Muslim religion spun off of the parent Jewish religion.

But I have noticed a lot of preachers bad-mouthing ("thou shalt not bear false witness"...."do unto others") the Jewish faith. I think that there would be a lot of Christians who would like to attend Jewish temples and discuss the Christian faith with those who could speak the language that their bible was originally writen in. I think that they would like to understand the concepts of the Jewish religion before it was altered.

Jews used to be polytheists. Wouldn't it be interesting for Christians to find out a little about the other Gods that were abandoned? Why were they abandoned? I suppose the most powerful God was jealous, and didn't want them worshipped. But shouldn't we know that other Gods are there (or were there)?

Jews have a concept of many heavens, not just one. I heard a lecture by the assistant pastor of a local Greek Orthodox church proclaiming that in the Jewish faith there is just one heaven. But, he didn't really understand the faith, so he didn't understand how the faith was changed by his own faith.

What would happen if many Christians returned to their roots? They would leave the church and convert back to Jews. Or they might find that the reforms of the Lutheran religion are closer to God? They might change denominations of Christianity.

So, to keep the members of their own church, they must bad mouth (bear false witness) against other churches.

This is why some people post that Jews are not human but they are lizard people. Good grief, what kind of idiot would spread that nonsense?

That's why some people pick on Jews as cheap. Yet, in reality, they donate generously (like City of Hope, the cancer hospital, was largely from donations of Jews, and that is where manmade insulin was invented). They are trying to find some difference that they can pick on.

That is why some people say that a bris is bad (merely because it is a practice of the Jewish people, and they don't care if it keeps men (and their partners) safe from germs.

That is why some people say that Jews slaughter animals cruelly. Actually, Jewish law is designed to slaughter meat as quickly and humanely as possible.

All these gripes (and bigotry) just to keep their own congregations. Yet, are their religions so weak that they cannot stand on their own merits? If so, why believe at all?

Must a people suffer at the hands of Nazis just because others want to pick on them?

 

[Clara Tea]

As a thought experiment, can you not imagine any other way that all these different scriptures exist, other than by the will of an omnipotent creator? You have conceded that some, if not all but one, can be wrong. Those you considered wrong must have come into existence in some fashion, or in a variety of fashions other than from an omnipotent creator. Conclusion then is that it is possible that every scripture is derived through one of these means other than revelation from the omnipotent creator.

Why do you believe false scriptures exist?

I've heard Christians disdaining other religions. They might see someone worshipping a panther God, and say that it is ridiculous. Yet, when they pay attention to the log in their own eye (rather the splinter in the eye of their victim), they realize that their religion teaches that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. I ask you, are there whales that large? Were there ever? How could someone breath in a submerged whale? Maybe there is air inside?

So, it seems that it is a ridiculous religion calling another religion ridiculous. It is as though they don't see their own failings, but they see the failings of others.

Religion is a big business, especially if it is a radio or TV broadcast. That takes a lot of money to run. They don't want to take a chance of losing all that revenue. Does love of mammon trump love of God?

 

[Clara Tea]

Therefore you're relativist or philosopher, you do not belong to any religion.
But religious person believes in God and revelation given by God.

But, if God can't be proven to exist, and religions can't be proven to be the correct religions, how does one decide to disdain other faiths?

 

[paradox]

Those you considered wrong must have come into existence in some fashion, or in a variety of fashions other than from an omnipotent creator. Conclusion then is that it is possible that every scripture is derived through one of these means other than revelation from the omnipotent creator.

I think the answer is "envy"
If one sees his neighbor having something cool, one may be willing to have this as well.

So it goes down to who has it first, but given the nature of scriptures it's impossible to know. faith is required.

 

[Valjean]

Because it's logically impossible that (A ≠ B) = (A = B)


If different religions would be about different realities then there would no need to interfere into another reality.
What you're saying is that a president is not contradictory to prime minister, which is true since one does one job and the other does other job, but religions are not like that, religions are interferent because of God or God's will.

I'm saying the subjective reality of 2nd-state consciousness -- REM sleep/dreaming -- is different from 3rd, or waking state, and different from 5th, 6th and 7th states.