Talk:Argument from inconsistent revelations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Argument from inconsistent revelations article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Ath

Argument from inconsistent revelations is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia.

For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss wether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

[edit] Votes for Deletion

• Argument_against_any_specific_God - Although I am an atheist myself, an article with this title cannot exist without being POV. Atheist rant. Mrdice 09:21, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
  • POV Atheist rant. Delete. Optim 09:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete rant -- Graham :) 11:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Take any relevant information and paste on Atheism or Agnosticism if possible. Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Anthony DiPierro 14:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original...er....research. DJ Clayworth 14:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant. Seth Mahoney 19:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Argument from inconsistent revelations, fix, and keep. We have pages for each of several Arguments for the existence of God, and a page on Arguments against the existence of God as well. This article needs help to be sure, but it contains the gist of that argument. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Smerdis/Ihcoyc is right -- keep. It definitely needs an overhaul, but I can envision this article outlaying the argument (and responses of course) in NPOV fashion. Jwrosenzweig 20:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Smerdis is wrong, Argument from inconsistent revelations is original "research" (more like poorly thought out musings), and, incidentilly, is pure bunk ;) If you would like to change the policy on original research go talk to Jimbo. Sam Spade 20:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I don't see how this counts as original research. There is no actual research in it. Secretlondon 22:48, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Fix, but if not fixed, delete. Definitely not NPOV (and i say this as a militant athiest). Morwen 23:00, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 23:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete but if not fixed AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can be made suitably NPOV. WP has Anselm's ontological argument, it can have the counter-arguments as well. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This has nothing to do with Anselm's argument, which is appropriate for inclusion in WP for historical reasons. Were it established that this argument was a rebuttal to Anselm's by some prominent philosopher or something similar, it might be appropriate for inclusion with sufficient NPOVing, but this isn't the case. Seth Mahoney 18:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • You're absolutely right, it's irrelevant for me to bring Anselm into this. I still believe the page can be made suitably NPOV. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Its interesting that you're supporting keeping an article here that definately qualifies as original research (as written, it contains no references as to who it originally came from, where it has been used, etc.), yet you support deleting Fractional probability on the grounds that it is original research. Admittedly, this article makes more sense than Fractional probability, but it is still original research. -Seth Mahoney 19:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The tittle "Argument against any specific God" is not in itself POV! 129.240.69.213 05:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• The question is always the same: is this a report or an essay? A report on how philosophers have treated and are treating such an argument is Wikipedia material. An essay on whether the subject itself is right or wrong is not encyclopedia material. Quite simple. Wetman 20:25, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I understand this objection well enough to be able to improve the article to respond to it. I have attempted to make this article roughly conformable to the other Arguments for the existence of God and Arguments against the existence of God, setting out the argument and potential responses or objections to it. I don't see how this one advocates a particular position more or less than the other, comparable pages do. Smerdis of Tlön 14:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleaning-up. It's a valid philosophical arguement and historical names have been added to back it up.TimothyPilgrim 14:26, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

Discussing the merits of the article itself: is the stuff about prayer really relevant? It seems to be starting a whole new argument, one that doesn't actually rely on conflicting revelations. For example two Christians who both believe exactly the same thing about God could be praying for contradictory things (such as to get the same job). I'm not saying the prayer question isn't an issue, but that it's a different issue. DJ Clayworth 15:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That was in the article as originally written. There are in fact two "points" to be made by this line of reasoning. The first, that inconsistent revelations, where you damn yourself according to one faith by accepting another, alter the payoff matrix of Pascal's Wager. The second line of reasoning states that if an all powerful God chooses to reveal a plan of salvation, the revelation should be so unmistakable and convincing that all who consider it know it is from God. The existence of disagreements about which faith to follow, the possibility of contradictory prayers, and similar contradictions in practice suggest that no all powerful god has revealed a true religion to humans. -- Smerdis of Tlön 05:30, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Added an additional point to the argument. I was torn between the bold statement of the argument (which I went with) and a weaselly 'some critics of the argument say'. If anyone can improve on my phraseology please do so. DJ Clayworth 15:27, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

In an effort to keep this page extant because I think it is a valuable part of philosophy, I've revised a lot of grammar, punctuation, and cleared up some points. However, I didn't touch the part on prayer and the paragraphs following it. I agree with others in that the article does not benefit from the inclusion of the problem of prayer, that is suitable for a different article, and the following text does not make sense to me. I can't tell what's being referred to, and I didn't want to revise it for fear of changing the intended meaning. Simply put, do the final paragraphs deal with the title article, or the opposition to it? Would the original author please clarify this? Comments? TimothyPilgrim 16:10, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)