Impossible Problems - Arising in Religion

Inconsistencies with God and more Impossible Problems. 

In religion, the argument from inconsistent revelations is an argument against the existence of God. It asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations.  While the common argument states that since a person not privy to any particular revelation, he/she must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of its proponent.   Indeed, there is the question of authority or faith. The argument continues that because there is no way for a mortal to resolve these conflicting claims by any form of validation, it is wise to reserve judgment.  That is, rejecting God’s existence is the proper and natural recourse. 

This argument clearly is based on the existence of a God that reveals himself clearly and consistently to all, that these revelations remain constant without reinterpretation and without change.  This puts God arguments on a plane orthogonal to most other sources of belief.   It places revelations on a level with or above science, the purportedly impartial and immutable arbiter of physical facts.   Taking this to a logical conclusion we may assert the position taken is that if information about a subject is inconsistent, it is prudent to reject completely any conclusion derived.   In short, complete rejection is method for treating inconsistencies.   Now, if this were applied to almost every human situation, every state of science, every state of social science, and every state of politics we would live in a world of rejected conclusions. There could and would be almost be no conclusions anyone could or should accept – except by belief. 

[Sidebar. Some of the most interesting stories of science are how inconsistencies drove the search for new truths. ]

Religious revelations have an interesting place in the world of human expressions.   The assumption is that once delivered, correct, devious, or false, they must remain true and unchanging.  It is without doubt some religions and practioners regard their scriptures as immutable, literal, and absolute.  Yet, we see a mitigating factor, best described as creep.  Then there is the natural creep of revelation by the retelling of stories over generations, the creep in interpretation of scripture, the creep in the attribution of the power of God – going from a fully intervening god in all lives and all times to the detached god of Spinoza.  “Is it not for the best?”  “It is God’s will,” are among many indicators of an active God, present every day in every life*.   The rejection argument stems from an assumption there must be a fully correct scripture not subject to human machinations.  Time and conditions change interpretations.  Facts and beliefs in the 14^th century are radically different than today – where much more rigor is required.   To sustain ancient beliefs would require a continued renewal of revelations and visions.  This is just the manner in which humans operate.

It is simple to slip out of these humanity-type factors by resting one’s case that God is the big show, and must be exempt from inconsistencies, and finally that the inconsistencies themselves disprove God. 

There is a quasi-mathematical version of this:

Assumptions:

• The existence of some god is certain,
• There is some number of different, mutually exclusive interpretations of that god one could believe in,
• There is no way to tell which, if any, is true a priori, i.e. deductively.

Conclusions:

• ·    The probability of having chosen to practice the correct version is ¹⁄_n,, n being their number. 
• Therefore, if there exist only two distinct faiths, the probability of making the correct choice is but one in two, or ¹⁄₂.         
•  Therefore, if there are thousands of religions or faiths, and there are, the probability of choosing the correct one is remote.  
•  However, it addition to considering all extant religions, one considers all possible religions, the chances of selecting the correct one is astronomically small.

These arguments appear in Voltaire's Candide and in his Philosophical Dictionary. It is also expressed by Denis Diderot's statement that, whatever proofs are offered for the existence of God in Christianity or any other religion, "an Imam can reason the same way".

The weakness of all these arguments is in the assumptions made.  By rejection that there is a single true faith that it must be immutable in time and content, the entire structure fails.  The agnostic arguments given above are good but suffer from the same human frailties of most human endeavors.  Incorrect assumptions lead to incorrect conclusions and thus to impossible problems.

Impossible Problems – to list a few…

•  Is there a God?  Is there a single God? 
• Can there be multiple god beliefs?  If so, must they be true, i.e. consistent, to some fundamental tenets? 
•  Do purported revelations actually emanate from God, or are they human manifestations of faith.  Or both? 
•  Must God be time invariant?

*This is a highly egotistical belief.  That a God who created a vastly inferior species substantially to worship Him should involve himself so intently with the daily affairs of His creations seems to be somewhat self-centered.