Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Does God exist?
Position‹3 of 3: No, God does not exist
Argument‹3 of 6›: Religious revelations are inconsistent

Since theologians and the faithful have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations, it is unlikely that God exists.

The argument

The argument for the existence of God known as Pascal's Wager states that nonbelievers should change their minds even if only because of precautionary reasons. One common reply is that given the proliferation of different religions, it is extremely unlikely that any one will bet on the right God. This is one instance of the argument from inconsistent revelations at work. There's an enormous variety of religions and denominations within them, many of whose claims are logically incompatible with one another. The argument from inconsistent revelations does not intend to be a deductive syllogism for the nonexistence of God, but rather a probabilistic argument. From the existence of multiple incompatible faiths it can be argued that probably no deities exist (or that they do not care for humanity). Otherwise it would imply that they have miserably failed at establishing a clearly epistemologically superior religious tradition.

Context

This argument informally states that no particular theology or version of God is believable, since arguments for the existence of God apply generically to many religions.

Premises

[P1]There is an enormous variety of religions and denominations whose claims are logically incompatible with one another. [P2] If a deity existed and cared for humanity, it would presumably have established a single, clearly superior religious tradition rather than this proliferation of conflicting faiths. [P3] The argument from inconsistent revelations concludes that, probabilistically, no deities exist or none care for humanity. [C] Therefore, because religious revelations are inconsistent, God does not exist.

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that inconsistent human revelations tell against the reliability of specific revealed traditions or their interpreters, not against the existence of a deity as such. A God could exist while humans get the details wrong — a possibility consistent with deism, or with the sibling "we can't know" position — so the evidence supports scepticism about particular revelations rather than atheism. They add that the argument's key assumption, that a caring God would have established one "clearly superior" tradition, is contestable. A deity might permit diverse, fallible human attempts or value free response, in which case religious disunity would not count against its existence at all.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The assumption that a caring God would establish one "clearly superior" tradition is contestable; a deity might permit diverse, fallible human attempts or value free response, so disunity need not count against its existence. [Rejecting P3] Inconsistent revelations tell against specific revealed traditions or human interpreters, not against any deity's existence; at most they support agnosticism, not the stronger claim that God does not exist.