“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
- Stephen Roberts
Discussion
This argument begs the question--meaning that it assumes what it has yet to prove.
So you subscribe equally to all religions? Otherwise I think I’m missing your meaning and wouldn’t mind a clarification.
The argument assumes there is no one true God, therefore belief in one God (or gods) over another is an arbitrary subjective choice ("this is MY truth"). But since there is a God, and since he has clearly revealed himself, to believe in this one God (and reject all others) is to accept what is.
I do not subscribe to all religions equally because they are not all just instances of the same class--they are not "the same universal truths speaking in different accents." They make conflicting truth claims--and only one accords with metaphysical reality (which exists whether I believe it or not).
The argument assumes that the God-who-is has *not* clearly revealed himself to us, in a way that we can understand, such that we can reject competing claims of deity. That is begging the question.
As Francis Schaeffer put it, "He is there, and He is not silent." Consider reading Romans 1 -- if not to be persuaded, then to at least understand what Christianity teaches.
🤙
Thank you for the clarification. I think we still disagree at a fundamental level but I have no issue with politely disagreeing on how the universe works. I don’t think we will convince one another, so we’ll just leave it at “different strokes for different folks”.