[jayceeii]

You have no mechanism for the appearance, reliability, or authority of any prophets. The West supposes these to have been usual men utilized as “living pens” by the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, a human is not persuaded that a prophet is reliable even if he spends decades contributing to science. Swedenborg I believe is one such unrecognized prophet.

For instance had Einstein declared, “Not only did I give you nuclear physics, but I have a message from God too,” he’d have been laughed down. Yet he did speak of it indirectly.

[Lelouch]

You object that there is no mechanism for the reliability or authority of prophets, and that even accomplished individuals like Einstein would not be considered reliable prophets. While it is true that the criteria for identifying a prophet may vary across different cultures and religions, there are a couple of responses to this objection that can be made.

You assume that the only way to establish the reliability and authority of a prophet is through their accomplishments in other areas, such as science. However, this is not necessarily the case. The criteria for identifying a prophet may include a variety of factors, such as the fulfillment of their prophecies.

You also overlook the fact that the testimony of prophets is often accompanied by signs and wonders that serve as evidence of their divine commission. For example, in the Bible, Moses performed miracles such as turning his staff into a snake and parting the Red Sea, which served as evidence of his authority as a prophet. Similarly, in the New Testament, Jesus performed numerous miracles, such as healing the sick and raising the dead, which were seen as evidence of his divine authority. These signs and wonders were not only witnessed by the prophets themselves, but also by those around them, providing independent evidence of their claims.

So While the criteria for identifying a prophet may vary across different cultures and religions, there are multiple ways in which their reliability and authority can be established, like the fulfillment of their prophecies and the signs and wonders that accompany their testimony.

[jayceeii]

If a person can’t establish his reliability through major contributions to science, then you must admit only things such as magic would convince humans that they are very different. Most of this world just going to laugh at you, if you want to cite prophecies. Even what seems to be the best among them, in the Bible, can be interpreted any way.

You should note this about Moses, that after each supposed miracle it only took a few weeks before “his people” were grumbling again and wanting to see him out of power. You can look at computers today, a great miracle immediately exploited by criminals. Look at humanity and admit miracles won’t satisfy them, and they’ll clamor for more.

[Lelouch]

You argue that only major contributions to science can establish a person’s reliability. However, this is not a reasonable standard to apply to all fields of human inquiry. It is certainly true that scientific contributions can demonstrate a person’s expertise in a particular area, but this does not mean that only scientists can be considered reliable sources of information. For example, historians, journalists, and eyewitnesses can all provide valuable testimony that sheds light on important events in human history. In the case of Christian prophets, their reliability can be assessed based on the accuracy of their prophecies and the consistency of their message over time.

You suggest that miracles are not convincing evidence for the existence of God because they can be exploited by criminals and are not universally accepted. However, the fact that some people may exploit miracles or that not everyone believes in them does not negate the possibility that they can be genuine signs of divine intervention. Moreover, the fact that miracles are not universally accepted does not mean that they are not valid evidence. It is also worth noting that not all arguments for the existence of God rely on miracles, and that there are other philosophical and theological arguments that have been put forward.

You cite the example of Moses and his followers as evidence that miracles are not sufficient to convince people of the existence of God. However, the fact that some people may be skeptical or resistant to belief in God does not mean that others cannot be convinced by evidence and argument. It is also worth noting that the example of Moses does not discredit the testimony of other prophets.

While skepticism and doubt are natural human responses to claims about the divine, it is still possible to make a reasoned case for the existence of God based on the evidence available.

[Johan]

Deja-vu. Depending on the support for 1 and 2, they might simply be question begging.

Edit: I also doubt that you would allow the same reasoning for evidence that Islam is true and alah is the one true God, so it might be special pleading too.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Johan.

[Lelouch]

You raise some important points to consider. Let’s address them one by one:

1. The claim that the argument is question-begging

Question-begging occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of its premises. In this case, you are suggesting that the argument assumes the truth of the Christian God’s existence in its first premise. However, this is not the case. Premise 1 merely states that if there are reliable and truthful prophets who claim to have received revelations from God, then it is reasonable to believe that God exists. This premise does not assume that God exists; it only establishes a conditional relationship between the existence of reliable and truthful prophets and the reasonableness of believing in God.

You suggest that the argument’s premises are unsupported. However, both premises have some support. The first premise is supported by the notion that human testimony is a legitimate form of evidence, provided that the witnesses are reliable and truthful. The second premise is supported by historical and religious records that describe prophets who have claimed to receive divine revelations.

2. The claim that the argument is guilty of special pleading

You suggest that the argument might be guilty of special pleading because it only applies to the Christian God and not to other gods, such as Allah. However, this objection is misplaced. The argument is not limited to just the Christian God. If there were reliable and truthful prophets who claimed to have received revelations from Allah, then the argument could be made for the existence of Allah. So the argument is not limited to the Christian God and does not make it guilty of special pleading.

So while you raise some valid points to consider, there is no reason to believe that the argument is question-begging, unsupported, or guilty of special pleading.

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Lelouch.

[Johan]

I tried to be careful in my language to state that it was not necessarily question begging, but that the question begging charge would be contingent on the support you were using for your premise. It seems that you seem to be saying:

If someone is generally viewed as reliable then we ought to take everything they say as truth.

You are then using that as justification for your premise. I think this line of thinking is horrible and I can’t imagine that you would actually stand behind such a premise, so I feel like I am missing something and don’t want to jump to that conclusion. Are you really saying that?

To escape the special pleading charge, you must have some criteria that shows Christian prophets to be reliable, but all other non-Christian prophets to be unreliable. Do you have a criteria like that? If so, what is it? (Note: If your argument could be used to support multiple mutually exclusive conclusions, then there must be some flaw in the argument)

[Lelouch]

Premise 1 of the argument does not make the claim that we should accept everything that a reliable person says as true. Rather, it makes the more modest claim that if reliable and truthful individuals claim to have received revelations from the Christian God, then it is reasonable to believe that the Christian God exists. This is not an unreasonable standard, as we often rely on the testimony of credible witnesses in our daily lives.

You again raise the issue of special pleading, which is the fallacy of applying a double standard to a particular case. In the case of the argument, the charge of special pleading would be valid if I claimed that Christian prophets are reliable and truthful without providing any evidence for why they are reliable and truthful, while rejecting the testimony of non-Christian prophets without providing any evidence for why they are unreliable.

However, the argument does not make any such claim. Rather, the argument relies on the historical and religious records that describe Christian prophets who have claimed to receive divine revelations. These records provide some evidence that these prophets were viewed as reliable and truthful.

[Johan]

“If reliable and truthful individuals claim to have received revelations from the Christian God, then it is reasonable to believe that the Christian God exists.”

Ok, so lets keep this consistent:

If reliable and truthful individuals claim to have received revelations from the Muslim God, then it is reasonable to believe that the Muslim God exists.

If reliable and truthful individuals claim to have received revelations from the Hindu God, then it is reasonable to believe that the Hindu God exists.

If reliable and truthful individuals claim to have received revelations from the Mormon God, then it is reasonable to believe that the Mormon God exists.

Clearly these all cannot be true right? So something is wrong with the methodology here. Also note that a claim about what a prophet has said does absolutely nothing to validate the claim of said prophet. Likewse, how reliable they are also has zero bearing to the factuality of any specific claim they make. I could make you a list of 1000 things. 999 of them are reliable and easily factually demonstrated. Does that mean that the final thing is too? Would you simply accept that the final thing on the list was true given that 99.9% of the list was verified as true? (I would hope not).

[Lelouch]

The objection raised to the argument is a valid one. If we accept the premise that the testimony of reliable and truthful prophets is sufficient evidence for the existence of their respective gods, then we would also have to accept the existence of multiple gods based on the testimony of their respective prophets. This would lead to a contradiction, as it is logically impossible for multiple gods to exist.

So let me revise the argument:

1. If there are reliable and truthful Christian prophets who claim to have received revelations from the Christian God, then it is reasonable to believe that the Christian God exists.

2. There are reliable and truthful prophets who claim to have received revelations from the Christian God.

3. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the Christian God exists.

Now, let’s see how your objection weighs against the revised argument.

You suggested that the argument presented is not consistent because it would also apply to other religions. This is true, but this is not a flaw in the revised argument. The revised argument is based on the idea that if reliable and truthful prophets claim to have received revelations from a particular deity, then it is reasonable to believe that the deity exists. This idea can be applied to any religion that has prophets who claim to receive revelations from a deity. So the argument is consistent in that it applies to all religions that meet the relevant criteria.

Your objection rightly points out that the reliability and truthfulness of a prophet does not guarantee the truth of their claims. This is also true, but it does not necessarily undermine the revised argument. The revised argument is not claiming that the testimony of prophets is infallible or that it should be accepted without scrutiny. Rather, the revised argument is based on the idea that if reliable and truthful prophets claim to have received revelations from a particular deity, then it is reasonable to believe that the deity exists, all else being equal.

Of course, all else is not always equal, and the claims of prophets should be subject to scrutiny and evaluation. This may involve examining the consistency and coherence of their teachings, comparing their claims to other sources of knowledge, and considering alternative explanations for their experiences. The reliability and truthfulness of a prophet is just one factor to consider in evaluating their claims, but it is not the only factor.

Finally, your objection raises a hypothetical scenario in which 999 out of 1000 claims are verified as true, but the final claim is not. Your objection suggests that this undermines the idea that the testimony of prophets should be accepted as evidence for the existence of a deity. However, this hypothetical scenario is not directly relevant to the revised argument. The revised argument is not claiming that the testimony of prophets is infallible or that it should be accepted without scrutiny. Rather, the revised argument is based on the idea that if reliable and truthful prophets claim to have received revelations from a particular deity, then it is reasonable to believe that the deity exists, all else being equal.

[Johan]

If you check again, I never said that point 1000 was false, I asked you if you would believe it was true based on the other 99.9% verification of the list. Well, would you?

I highly doubt you would, and that would be the reasonable answer. Each claim on the list should be vetted and verified on its own, and the reliability of the rest of the list does nothing to bolster every claim within it.

Also, your revised argument does not do anything to solve the question begging charge. If anything it highlights the problem. After all, you just proved Islam too:

1. If there are reliable and truthful Muslim prophets who claim to have received revelations from the Muslim God, then it is reasonable to believe that the Muslim God exists.

2. There are reliable and truthful prophets who claim to have received revelations from the Muslim God.

3. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the Muslim God exists.

However, both Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive and can’t both be correct, so because of that contradiction, there is again something wrong with the reasoning here.

Unless you have some objective criteria that shows Islamic prophets to be unreliable and un truthful that also shows Christian prophets to be reliable and truthful. Do you have that?

The more I think about it, the more the reliability and truthfulness of the prophets of Christianity seems to be a bald assertion on your part. However, as I have said, and showed with my 1000 list example, the reliability and truthfulness of that can be verified, does nothing to support the parts that cannot be verified. Ultimately it is the verification that matters, and not the reliability of the prophets.