I'd be curious to know who makes this specific argument. Edit - looks like I wasn't the only one. And it looks like the answer is "no one who actually exists outside the OP's imagination".
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One argument against Christianity as being the one true religion is one based on an appeal to religious pluralism. One specific argument for religious pluralism, hereafter referred to as "SAP" and goes like this:
Christianity is but one of several different worldviews. Since there are worldviews that are dissimilar to Christianity, Christianity is false.
One argument against Christianity as being the one true religion is one based on an appeal to religious pluralism. One specific argument for religious pluralism, hereafter referred to as "SAP" and goes like this:
Christianity is but one of several different worldviews. Since there are worldviews that are dissimilar to Christianity, Christianity is false.
A swift refutation of this particular argument would be to show that if it's crucial premise is applied to the pluralist view itself, it is false. Let VDTRP represent "View dissimilar to religious pluralism".
1. If a VDTRP exists, then religious pluralism is false.
2. A VDTRP exists
3. Therefore, religious pluralism is false
The proponent of SAP affirms one because he thinks that the existence of a dissimilar view of x makes x false. So the crucial premise is 2. In support of premise 2, all one need to do is point to the existence of at least one view that is dissimilar to Religious Pluralism. Religious Exclusivism is one such view. Thus the proponent of SAP, in attempting to argue for Religious pluralism, actually shows it to be false.
No one here holds to this SAP, however, I am sure.
How can I think someone is wrong, if I don't know how they reach the conclusion they did?
I'm just glad you don't think it is a good argument. I am glad you agree with me on that.You seem to be making a habbit of first presenting a silly argument that nobody is making, only to then "refute" it and then pretending that you have scored some kind of point.
It's quite sad.
Perhaps for the next thread, you should first ask people their actual opinions / arguments, and then go from there.
My goodness......One specific argument for religious pluralism, hereafter referred to as "SAP" and goes like this:
Christianity is but one of several different worldviews. Since there are worldviews that are dissimilar to Christianity, Christianity is false.....
My goodness.
I'm a religious pluralist, and that would be an awful argument to attempt on behalf of religious pluralism.
By knowing what is right.
If someone walks up to you and tells you the earth rests on a turtle's shell, you can know they are wrong without hearing them out on why they think that. You know they are wrong because you know the earth does not rest on a turtle's shell.
How do you know the earth doesn't rest on a turtle's shell?
Is it evidence?
Of course, it´s a terrible argument - which is no surprise, seeing that you are its author.I'm just glad you don't think it is a good argument. I am glad you agree with me on that.
One argument against Christianity as being the one true religion is one based on an appeal to religious pluralism. One specific argument for religious pluralism, hereafter referred to as "SAP" and goes like this:
Christianity is but one of several different worldviews. Since there are worldviews that are dissimilar to Christianity, Christianity is false.
A swift refutation of this particular argument would be to show that if it's crucial premise is applied to the pluralist view itself, it is false. Let VDTRP represent "View dissimilar to religious pluralism".
1. If a VDTRP exists, then religious pluralism is false.
2. A VDTRP exists
3. Therefore, religious pluralism is false
The proponent of SAP affirms one because he thinks that the existence of a dissimilar view of x makes x false.
By knowing what is right.
If someone walks up to you and tells you the earth rests on a turtle's shell, you can know they are wrong without hearing them out on why they think that. You know they are wrong because you know the earth does not rest on a turtle's shell.
For example, If I say "Jesus is God incarnate", that statement is not rendered false just because atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews say otherwise.
I never hear cooking discussions where any party, nor the audience, feels the need to define "food"....To me, it's like debating various cooking styles without defining what food is.
I never hear cooking discussions where any party, nor the audience, feels the need to define "food".
That is NOT "religious pluralism." It is exclusiveism in the sense that ALL are wrong. If you can exclude Christianity because another system is different, then that system itself can be dismissed also since it is different than Christianity.One argument against Christianity as being the one true religion is one based on an appeal to religious pluralism. One specific argument for religious pluralism, hereafter referred to as "SAP" and goes like this:
Christianity is but one of several different worldviews. Since there are worldviews that are dissimilar to Christianity, Christianity is false.
There are theological discussions where that question comes up.I never hear cooking discussions where any party, nor the audience, feels the need to define "food".
Then perhaps the cooking-discussion comparison doesnt really work.There are theological discussions where that question comes up.
That's not a good argument for Christianity being false. The religious pluralist would probably not be inclined to make that sort of argument anyway.
Agreed.Then perhaps the cooking-discussion comparison doesnt really work.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?