Yes, because so far I don't see an argument. What I see is a statement of fact--the very obvious fact that people beleive different things. If you are arguing that because people believe different things, I am therefore automatically wrong, that seems to be an excellent example of the logical fallacy called non-sequitur--(fancy word for 'it doesn't follow').
You seem to have missed my point. Since we have different opinions, it follows that God is indeed either unwilling or unable to give "us" an accurate knowledge of history. Some of us, perhaps.
Secondly, All these different interpretations of the Bible are just that, interpretations. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they are interpretations. When I map an area looking for oil, I usually have a different interpretation of the geology than my colleaques in other companies. Your argument basically says that because my colleagues map the area differently than I, I am automatically wrong. Sorry, that is illogical.
No, I'm saying that in that case
at least one of you is wrong: which proves that if there is an omnipotent God, it is not his will that everyone should have an accurate map of the area.
Of course my quadralemma is an argument for atheism. Are we not to pay attention to arguments directed against Christianity itself when trying to interpret the Bible? Now, you may choose to believe that God can't communicate anything of real knowledge to humanity.
I didn't say that he
can't communicate any facts to humanity, I said that clearly he has
not in fact communicated certain facts to humanity. To a tiny percentage of humanity, maybe.
Please explain to me what logic drives you to see false stories and decide that the God who inspired them is worthy of worship.
But I don't. I see false stories and conclude that they were not, in fact, inspired by God.
I always love it when people, who think that God can't communicate anything certain about reality, are so quick to relate their certainty about what God would or wouldn't do. It seems deliciously cheezy to claim that you KNOW that God wouldn't do a particular act while at the same time you are arguing that God can't or won't communicate reality. So I ask. Did God communicate this verity to you? In what form did you receive this particular revelation? And if you believe it is from the same God whom you charge with the inability to communicate reality, why on earth do you believe what He says? (please answer each of these questions and don't ignore them. Most people I ask this of, simply refuse to even address the means by which they know the truth of their assertion of what God would do).
But I'm not talking about what God
can do or
can't do or
would do or
wouldn't do --- I am talking about what he
manifestly has not done. He
has not put the germ theory of disease or the inverse square law into the Bible and he
has not successfully comunicated the truth about prehistory to the whole of humanity.
Without any theological speculation --- without even considering whether God exists --- we can deduce that if he does exist, he must be either unable or unwilling to make the sky pink with green spots,
since it is not in fact that color. I don't need a divine revelation to tell me this, I just need to look at the sky.
So the answer to your questions are, respectively: (a) no (b) by observation (c) not applicable.
Have you actually READ, the Qur'aan? I have. There is actually very little historical narrative there. and it is boring. Secondly, Are you aware that Islam accepts the Torah's creaton story? When you realize this, then your question becomes one which shows you don't know a lot about Islam. Three religions accept this creation story--Islam, Judaism and Christianity. So the answer to your question is rather simple. The Qur'aan accepts the Torah which is what tells us about the creation and the flood.
I have read the Qur'aan; it differs from the Torah on several points; and Islamic theology says that when it does so the Qur'aan is right and the text of the Torah has been corrupted.
Actually I didn't say God couldn't exist and tolerate any particular thing. I dont' know where you got that idea.
From the quadrilemma. You seem to be arguing that a God both good and powerful would not permit us to be in the dark about certain matters.
Now, because of this verse, I don't believe in the Santa-God most people want to believe in, the Kindly God who only passes out A's to all us chillins' and who never says a cross word. This kindly old grandfather Santa-God is not who I think God is.
You might say, oh how cruel of me to believe God gives people cancer, well, as a cancer patient, I have no problem with that concept. God never promised me an 80 year life with no difficulty, so god never broke a promise to me. Indeed, people who get angry at God when bad things come usually have the Santa-god concept and then blame God for failing to deliver on a promise God never made!
I would suggest when presenting an argument which is supposed to rip up my views, that you actually know my views. The above paragraph is arguing from the assumption (admittedly statistically probable) that any random Christian is going to hold to the Santa God concept.
Au contraire. My point is that you
cannot believe in a Santa-God and that therefore there is no point claiming that he must have brought us accurate historical knowledge for Christmas --- as your quadrilemma appears to do.
If his justice doesn't compel him to cure your cancer, why should it compel him to give you accurate historical knowledge? You have swallowed the camel, and now you're straining at the gnat.
Suppose I rewrote your quadrilemma like this ---
If God is able or willing to cure all disease, then he is God
If God is unable but willing to cure all disease, then he is impotent.
If God is able but unwilling to cure all disease, then he is evil
If God is both unable and unwilling to cure all disease, then he is not God.
--- then it seems you'd reject
this reasoning. But it's the same reasoning, except that it's applied to the evils of sickness and suffering rather than the lesser evil of ignorance of historical facts. It seems to me that
a fortiori, you must reject your original quadrilemma.
---
I'm sorry to hear about your illness.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : To put the "s" in "respectively".
™ Version 4.2
(1)