Board index ‹ Christianity

[Ugga Bugga]

An argument for the implausibility of Christianity:

1) we know by experience that sexual engagement is a positive engagement

2) there are many gods, for example Zeus, who have a better record of sexual activity than that of any god of Christianity

3) if the god of religion A has a better record of positive engagement than the god of religion B has, then we should suppose that the existence of the god of religion A is more likely than the existence of the god of religion B

4) thus, by various obvious inferences, the theist should be more committed to the existence of, for example, Zeus, than they are to the existence of any of the Christian gods

5) but Christians are not "committed to the existence of, for example, Zeus, than they are to the existence of any of the Christian gods"

6) therefore, Christians should be committed to the implausibility of the existence of any of their gods.

[jimwalton]

Wow, there seems to be a lot of confusion here.

1) we know by experience that sexual engagement is a positive engagement

...for humans. To extend this statement into the realm of deity changes the statement. For instance (a) how do you know there is sexual engagement with deity? (b) what makes you think sexual engagement is a positive engagement with deity? (c) what you know by experience as a human doesn't necessarily translate into what you can't know by experience about deity.

So your point is already hopelessly lost, and we're still in the first question.

2) there are many gods, for example Zeus, who have a better record of sexual activity than that of any god of Christianity

Here your logical problems grow even worse. Christianity (since you are asking a Christian) teaches that there are no other gods. Mythological stories about the behavior of other gods is moot at best and inadmissible as evidence. We've lost the whole grounds of the debate.

In addition, what counts as a "better record of sexual activity"? What is the standard and who is the judge of such?

Your argument for the implausibility of Christianity is so fraught with logical problems that we can't proceed without total revision of your premises.