Argument Draft #2
1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God would be able to use his omniscient and omnipotent abilities to achieve a state of absolute perfection. (premise)
2. If God is absolutely perfect, then God would not be mutable. (premise)
3. If God is immutable, then his truths must be absolutely perfect and immutable. (premise)
4. If God’s truths are immutable and perfect, then the only religion that reflects these truths is true. (premise)
5. Thus, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then the only religion that reflects these truths is true. (1-4)
—by John
1/16/07
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 18, 2007 at 4:31 pm
John
1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God would be able to use his omniscient and omnipotent abilities to achieve a state of absolute perfection. (premise)
2. If God is absolutely perfect, then God would not be mutable. (premise)
3. If God is immutable, then his truths must be absolutely perfect and immutable. (premise)
4. If God’s truths are immutable and perfect, then the only religion that reflects these truths is true. (premise)
5. Thus, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then the only religion that reflects these truths is true. (1-4)
April 9, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Atheista
Flawed logic enters at 1. You assume the existence of God.
Another supposition occurs at 4. You assume there is a religion which “reflects these truths”. Further, you assume there to be only 1 religion which “reflects these truths”.
Without the first assumption, there is no point to the arguement, but 4 still leaves you flat on your face.
April 10, 2007 at 1:33 am
John
The argument could containe an extra premis that says:
If God exist, then he is……
That would not radically affect the validity or soundness of the premises. Furthermore, since it is a conditional statement the premise assuming God exist is merely suppressed. Also I would like to point out that these premises are sound according to Christian beliefs and what society accepts as God’s characteristics; any person could deny almost any presence depending on their beliefs. For example
1. All men are mortal
2. Ben is a man
3. All mortals die.
4. Therefore, Ben will die.
This argument is sound and valid, however, I could say “premise 1 is flawed it assumes that men cant live spiritually forever.” Thus, soundness is not contingent upon the personal beliefs.
Could you explain your objection to 4 and why it leaves me flat on my face? I would like an argument for that…rather than an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam –objection.
Thank you,
John