Revelation vs Reason

[AgnosticBoy]

In another thread, I recently explained that I could not become a Christian because I don't see it being compatible with the processes of reason and verifiable evidence. Of course, Christians can use reason and evidence, but they often do so after the fact by trying to validate their preconceived conclusions (the details in the Bible). A rational person would use reason before reaching a conclusion.

In response to this, LittleNipper seemed to have used revelation as justification for his beliefs. That line of thinking ties into the discussions on faith vs reason - here's one such perspective in regards to the faith side:

A conflict between knowledge derived through natural human faculties and knowledge derived from divine revelation occurs only if an apparent contradiction arises.
...
If we are going to understand better the relationship between faith and reason, we must have a clearer understanding of these two words. The word faith is used in several different ways by Christian thinkers. It can refer to the beliefs that Christians share (the “Christian faith”). The word faith also can refer to our response to God and the promises of the gospel. This is what the Reformed Confessions mean when they speak of “saving faith” (for example, the WCF 14). This faith involves knowledge, assent, and trust. Finally, many philosophers and theologians have spoken of faith as a source of knowledge. As Caleb Miller explains, “The truths of faith are those that can be known or justifiedly believed because of divine revelation, and are justified on the basis of their having been revealed by God.”

- Ligioner Ministries

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?
2. If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history? Why did the Church wrongly condemn Galileo for his heliocentric theory?

[Goose]

1. If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

2. Revelation is from God.

3. Therefore, Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible (via modus ponens).

Please clarify premise 1: Does the property of infallibility necessarily entail the property of "always truth revealing"? Could an infallible god, at least occasionally, deliberately reveal inaccurate or misinformation for some justified reason or does that describe a logical contradiction?

I do not think that the quality of infallibility alone necessarily implies always telling the truth. It seems to me infallibility only commits itself to being incapable of error. Even without the additional quality of never telling a lie, a quality God also possesses, premise (1) would still hold by virtue of God being infallible. I suppose I could have attached something like “and does not lie” to the end of premise (1). I just went with infallible since the context of the question seems to imply acquiring knowledge where Revelation is being compared to reason.

[Goose]

So originally, I was trying to say that historical evidence doesn't reach a level of certainty of knowing. But then again, accepting it on any level would still count as a belief. I get your point there. But my thinking is that theism requires belief in God's existence. I don't know that Jesus is God nor that God exists.

I'm providing a way for you to know that God exists. I will direct you back to the argument I gave.

1. If Jesus did resurrect, then God exists.

2. Jesus did resurrect.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Or we can put the argument another way.

1. If God does not exist, then Jesus did not resurrect.

2. Jesus did resurrect.

3. Therefore, God does exist.

You already said you accept premise (2) and seemed to confirm that in your last follow up post. So do you dispute premise (1)? If so, why? If not, why reject the conclusion?

I don't agree with premise #1. I simply see no necessary connection where resurrection could only mean God was involved.

Premise (1) seems to be the least controversial of the first two. If you do not see the existence of God as a necessary condition for Jesus to resurrect, then you hold that Jesus did resurrect without God. What does Jesus’ resurrection imply then? What else better explains Jesus’ resurrection? Naturalism, the devil, advanced aliens, or something else?

The NT writers claimed that God did it, and many would reject that just because it involves the supernatural. I draw the line with what can be verified objectively, regardless of if it is supernatural or natural. Saying that God did it isn't something that can be objectively verified, but the resurrection is observable when you can see a man killed and then see him alive again.

This line of reasoning is terribly flawed and should necessarily cause you to reject premise (2), which you said you accept, among many other premises you likely accept. Like every event from the distant past the resurrection of Jesus is not directly observable and cannot be objectively verified. Rather, it’s the best explanation of the historical facts which are undergirded mainly by testimony. If you really do think this way, where you draw the line at what can be verified objectively, it would be far more rational of you to accept premise (1) and reject premise (2) which has its own set of challenges but at least you would be reasoning consistently.

[TRANSPONDER]

So originally, I was trying to say that historical evidence doesn't reach a level of certainty of knowing. But then again, accepting it on any level would still count as a belief. I get your point there. But my thinking is that theism requires belief in God's existence. I don't know that Jesus is God nor that God exists.

I'm providing a way for you to know that God exists. I will direct you back to the argument I gave.

1. If Jesus did resurrect, then God exists.

2. Jesus did resurrect.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Or we can put the argument another way.

1. If God does not exist, then Jesus did not resurrect.

2. Jesus did resurrect.

3. Therefore, God does exist.

You already said you accept premise (2) and seemed to confirm that in your last follow up post. So do you dispute premise (1)? If so, why? If not, why reject the conclusion?

I don't agree with premise #1. I simply see no necessary connection where resurrection could only mean God was involved.

Premise (1) seems to be the least controversial of the first two. If you do not see the existence of God as a necessary condition for Jesus to resurrect, then you hold that Jesus did resurrect without God. What does Jesus’ resurrection imply then? What else better explains Jesus’ resurrection? Naturalism, the devil, advanced aliens, or something else?

The NT writers claimed that God did it, and many would reject that just because it involves the supernatural. I draw the line with what can be verified objectively, regardless of if it is supernatural or natural. Saying that God did it isn't something that can be objectively verified, but the resurrection is observable when you can see a man killed and then see him alive again.

This line of reasoning is terribly flawed and should necessarily cause you to reject premise (2), which you said you accept, among many other premises you likely accept. Like every event from the distant past the resurrection of Jesus is not directly observable and cannot be objectively verified. Rather, it’s the best explanation of the historical facts which are undergirded mainly by testimony. If you really do think this way, where you draw the line at what can be verified objectively, it would be far more rational of you to accept premise (1) and reject premise (2) which has its own set of challenges but at least you would be reasoning consistently.

I find all of the reasoning unsound. And the question of Bayesian probability ought to be considered, conditioned by evidence logic. Logically, and bearing in mind normalcy, some supernatural element would have to be involved if Jesus did resurrect from the dead. And while one can point to alternatives, probability would suggest Jesus' God rather than ET aliens or something else.

But. given the way the world works and also the evidence (actually ignored or dismissed by Bible apologists) of the account, the better explanation is that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead and the story was either invented, OR the resurrection was faked, OR Jesus died or did not actually die; but either way his body was removed by the disciples who put him there. All of those are in fact better supported by the evidence and it is only Faithbased preference that enables Believers to prefer the 'Jesus did rise' over any other possibility.

This, incidentally, is why the Lord, Liar or Lunatic argument fails, because it excludes all other more mundane and probable explanations in favor of a strawman argument.

[Data]

Again, I'm not sure how the above information is relevant.

Bear with me.

The first question is: Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?

The OP proposes that "Christians can use reason and evidence, but they often do so after the fact by trying to validate their preconceived conclusions (the details in the Bible). A rational person would use reason before reaching a conclusion." Without evidence you have nothing to reason with. Revelation from God comes either directly to the individual for specific reasons, as was made available to Ahab, but more generally through the Bible. If the Bible wasn't available as evidence, we have nothing to reason with. The "preconceived notion" is the hypothesis. You've asked the question, you do the research, now you have a hypothesis. How do you test it, analyze it and draw a conclusion? Without the details in the Bible? Without the indirect revelation? So, anyone can read 1 Kings 22:21-22 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12. We have to reason with it. They are reading that indirect revelation. What about direct revelation? That was available to Ahab, through the prophets, but that doesn't mean he would receive, or accept it, but if he had that still doesn't mean he has reasoned with it.

Think of it like gravity. I have preconceived notions about gravity. I know what an apple does if it should dislodge from a tree. It isn't going to fly away it's gon'na fall on yo' head. I can explore that further by developing a theory on gravity, but I don't need to because it's already been done. Can I assume that effort is infallible? I can repeat the experimentation. In more depth than the aforementioned observation of its effects (on yo' head) I can comprehend the behavior of celestial bodies, the concept of weight, and the dynamics of the universe. The more you reason with the evidence - the revelation - the more solid your "preconceived notions." If you've just read 1 Kings 22:21-22 and 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 your preconceived notions aren't very sound. There's the answer to the first question. Revelation is on par with our God given ability to reason. Through knowledge and experience. We may have to gain that.

Let's try to explore the case of Ahab doing that. Keep this in mind though, God told Moses ה ר ה or Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. A poor translation is I am that I am, a more accurate translation is I will prove what I prove to be. God was establishing a trust. The word Israel means to contend, wrestle or grapple with God and thus God preserves. The Latin word credit means trust, belief, faith. I.e. credentials, credible. You following me? You give the benefit of the doubt then through experience, and knowledge credit is established.

According to the story (please correct me if I'm mistaken in my understanding), god revealed false information to a set of prophets who were tasked with advising Ahab.

Perhaps we should try a more sophisticated approach. The angel didn't give Ahab's prophets false information, he simply allowed them to express their own desires, which is exactly why Ahab looked to them and not the prophets who were speaking truth. He knew the difference.

At the same time, god revealed true information to Micaiah who was also tasked with advising Ahab. Had god revealed true information to all the prophets as well as Micaiah, am I to infer from your above explanation that Ahab's reasoning would have led him to ignore all of his trusted advisors anyway?

He didn't have to but he most likely would because he had a specific goal in mind and the truth would only get in the way of achieving that goal. This is why you don't blindly accept or trust, have faith in Christians, believers such as myself or anyone else, even yourself, when it comes to divine revelation. Even, as it turns out with Ahab, with God. Ahab wasn't willing to contend with God and be preserved. He had something else in mind. When we look to "God's Earthly Organization" or individual or collection of books or our own reasoning, we can lose focus in order to achieve our own or someone else's goals. We can even wrongly claim divine revelation. Etymologically speaking, Satan is the god of this world and he is far more likely to reveal falsehood to us; being a part of the world, we are far more likely to be inclined to measure our goals within that structure than contend with God, especially if we haven't established trust or faith with a basis of knowledge and experience allowing us to reason.

If so, then of what value was it for god to reveal a lie to all but one of Ahab's trusted prophets when he was determined to ignore the truth regardless?

That, my friend, is an excellent question. Ahab has a backstory beyond 1 Kings 22:21-22 as it turns out. What you want to do is explore that rather than take that little clip and try to impose it into your own specific circumstances. You want it to serve as an example, not a confirmation bias

Doesn't even the most basic line of reasoning lead to the conclusion that it is probably best to act in accordance with a consensus of trusted advisors (given the presumption that there is a justifiable reason to trust those advisors)?

Certainly.

If so, then in an alternate scenario where god revealed the same truth to all of Ahab's trusted prophets including Micaiah, what is the justification for expecting Ahab's basic reasoning capabilities to fail him?

It wasn't Ahab's reasoning ability or God's revelation that was problematic in this case.

Obviously, Ahab must have been inclined to believe that his trusted prophets were receiving revelations from an infallible god.

What evidence is there of that? What are you basing it on? As mentioned earlier, they - God and Ahab, had a backstory.

Otherwise, why would he employ and seek advice from a contingent of prophets?

To tell him what he wanted to hear. Confirmation bias.

Accordingly, isn't it reasonable to expect that Ahab would be receptive to his own direct revelation from an infallible god if he had been targeted by god to receive one? Therefore, what would be the justification for providing a revelation to Ahab's trusted prophets but not Ahab himself? Again, am I to infer from your explanation above that a man who believed in divine revelation and sought advice from people who were receiving revelations would reason so poorly as to ignore his own revelatory experience should one be induced in him by an infallible god?

You mean, without the middleman? Prophets? God chooses his prophets with care. He puts faith in them, entrusting them with their task. It takes, among other things, humility. Ahab wasn't chosen as a prophet and wouldn't have listened to God's direct revelation just as he wasn't receptive to God's arrangement of trusted prophets speaking on his behalf. It wouldn't have made any difference.

More relevant to the topic of this thread, how can revelation be consistently better than reasoning when revelation has been demonstrated to occasionally impart incorrect or misinformation where proper reasoning would have otherwise succeeded?

I think I've answered that above. I don't have time to get into the details of Ahab's backstory, which I did mention above, though. What was God's objective in the case of Ahab? 1 Kings 20-22 give you some insight on that.

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't agree with premise #1. I simply see no necessary connection where resurrection could only mean God was involved.

Premise (1) seems to be the least controversial of the first two. If you do not see the existence of God as a necessary condition for Jesus to resurrect, then you hold that Jesus did resurrect without God. What does Jesus’ resurrection imply then? What else better explains Jesus’ resurrection? Naturalism, the devil, advanced aliens, or something else?

I don't claim that God wasn't involved, but rather there's no evidence for that. In the absence of evidence, I'm open to all of the above - advanced aliens, some unknown natural ability, God, etc.

The NT writers claimed that God did it, and many would reject that just because it involves the supernatural. I draw the line with what can be verified objectively, regardless of if it is supernatural or natural. Saying that God did it isn't something that can be objectively verified, but the resurrection is observable when you can see a man killed and then see him alive again.

This line of reasoning is terribly flawed and should necessarily cause you to reject premise (2), which you said you accept, among many other premises you likely accept. Like every event from the distant past the resurrection of Jesus is not directly observable and cannot be objectively verified.

I meant that something would have to be observable, in principle. Jesus's post-mortem appearances would have been an observable event which is why there were witnesses. Basically, I'm trying to find a reasonable way to accommodate the supernatural from a historical standpoint. The current standard of historians involves using common experience as background knowledge to weigh the validity of historical claims. I think that is problematic because it leads historians to either ignore or reject supernatural accounts no matter how well documented it is. I find that to be no different than how scientists refuse to investigate UFOs despite there being well-documented cases.

Not saying my standard is perfect, but if you or anyone else, can offer something better that allows for the supernatural and preserves some reasonableness, then I'm all ears. I'd want to know if we should accept that Jesus visited different spiritual realms just because multiple sources reported that? What about stories about Joseph Smith's golden plates and his witnesses and how that started Mormonism shortly after?

Rather, it’s the best explanation of the historical facts which are undergirded mainly by testimony.

Agreed. I also like that it involves a type of event that could be observed, as opposed to just focusing on our common experience today. Focus on the latter option leads to an ideological bias or it reinforces one, in effect.

[TRANSPONDER]

If the Bible is true, my Pig can fly
My pig can fly,
Therefore the Bible is true.

Classic affirming the consequent fallacy you've got there.

Thank you. Then you Ought to understand that your propositions are also fallacies unless you can validate the claim that Jesus did resurrect. I have given other possibilities which you have ignored. I elaborate:

(1)The stories are made up, which is why they contradict. That is the claims of resurrection are not reliable.

(1a) Jesus died and his body was taken away, or he didn't die and he was taken away alive.

Such 'natural' explanations are at least as likely as the supernatural miracle, even if the Bible -writers didn't consider them.

[alexxcJRO]

No, I’m saying your version of the argument is invalid. You don't get to add a bunch of untenable stuff to my premises and then call it my argument.
It’s not my premise. As you admit here you inserted and added things to my argument thereby making it a different argument, i.e. your argument.
You should, you should address the argument I’ve made. Not your strawman version of it. That would help you avoid many of the irrational counter arguments you’ve been trying to make.
My argument said nothing whatsoever about committing atrocities. It didn’t even imply it. If someone were to get “therefore, commit atrocities” from my argument they clearly aren’t reasoning correctly.

I never said it says.
I said such logic: “Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from God" can be used to overturn any human rational. That such logic can be used to commit atrocities. People already did so.
My point is about practicality of such a thing.
No need to whine.

A new distinct human life begins at conception. A five day old embryo is a very young human (assuming it’s a human embryo of course). Another name for a very young human is baby. I’m not the only one who uses the term baby in this way.
“It is during this first trimester that the fetus is most susceptible to damage from substances, like alcohol, drugs and certain medicines, and illnesses, like rubella (German measles). During the first trimester, your body and your baby’s body are changing rapidly.” – John Hopkins Medicine
“Through the first trimester, your baby goes from being a fertilised ovum to a foetus of about 6cm in length at 12 weeks. – Australian Government” – Department of Health
You may not prefer the term baby because of the implications, but the term is not logically incorrect.

Irrelevant.
My point was that a fetus few days old is not really a sentient being though, is not a non-moral agent, is not a person.
Ergo no suffering. No problem of evil and so on.

But your premise still remains false despite your personal opinion about killing babies that meet your arbitrary criteria. You argued human reason is that killing babies is wrong. But there are many humans who do not reason killing babies is wrong. As I argued abortions in Canada are legal at any point in the pregnancy. Statistics from 2019 in Canada suggested that nearly 70% of abortions occur in the 9th week and later. Of the roughly 83,000 abortions that year only 17,421 occurred where gestational age was known at the time of the killing. Of that 703 (or 4%) babies were killed at 21 weeks or later. If we extrapolated that percentage out to the roughly 83,000 abortions that year, that implies there may have been approximately 3,300 babies killed after 21 weeks.

Dear sir let me spell out for you:

I never said all humans deemed it so as I did.

Punishing, inflicting suffering and killing a non-moral agent is wrong, moronic, immoral if logic and logical absolutes apply. That is truth no matter the universe and who does it: moronic human beings or extremely powerful beings.
Most human are morons and do not have a consistent morality. Off course they do not believe killing fully formed unborn babies is wrong. It is socially acceptable.
Aztecs sacrificed infants and no one batted an eye because was done in name of religion and because humans could condone the most awful things as long they are socially acceptable.
But not al humans are morons sir. They are people like me, although rare.

When you say it’s wrong in any universe, do you mean it’s necessarily true that killing babies is immoral?

Punishing, inflicting suffering to/ killing a non-moral agent is wrong, moronic, immoral, illogical.
Q: Do you not agree? (yes/no)

[Goose]

I don't agree with premise #1. I simply see no necessary connection where resurrection could only mean God was involved.

Premise (1) seems to be the least controversial of the first two. If you do not see the existence of God as a necessary condition for Jesus to resurrect, then you hold that Jesus did resurrect without God. What does Jesus’ resurrection imply then? What else better explains Jesus’ resurrection? Naturalism, the devil, advanced aliens, or something else?

I don't claim that God wasn't involved, but rather there's no evidence for that.

The arguments I’ve given are evidence. Here’s some more.

"[Jesus] you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him from the dead..." - Peter, Acts 2:23-24

"if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" - Paul, Romans 10:9

"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes." – Jesus, John 5:21

"I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it back." – Jesus, John 10:18

Jesus’ own self understanding is that he had the divine authority to raise himself, an act only God could do.

In the absence of evidence, I'm open to all of the above - advanced aliens, some unknown natural ability, God, etc.

But what evidence is there for these alternate propositions?

(i) If Jesus did resurrect, then advanced aliens exist.

(ii) If Jesus did resurrect, then naturalism is true.

(iii) If Jesus did resurrect, then the devil exists.

(iv) If Jesus did resurrect, then God exists.

We have quite a bit of evidence for (iv) and it creates a necessary condition for Jesus to resurrect. What reasons do we have to think (i), (ii), or (iii) are true? Further (i), (ii), and (iii) do not create a necessary condition for Jesus to resurrect. Naturalism can’t explain Jesus’ resurrection. If Jesus' resurrection was the result of some unknown natural ability, then resurrections would be common. Assuming advanced aliens exist, why would they raise a crucified Jew? Why would the devil resurrect Jesus? What evidence is there that the devil has the power to even raise the dead?

You agree the best explanation of the historical facts is that Jesus did resurrect and accept premise (2). But here on premise (1) you take a neutral position and won’t accept God as the best explanation for the resurrection. For some reason you are open to ideas that have little to no explanatory power. I think this position you hold of accepting premise (2) but rejecting (1) is untenable.

The NT writers claimed that God did it, and many would reject that just because it involves the supernatural. I draw the line with what can be verified objectively, regardless of if it is supernatural or natural. Saying that God did it isn't something that can be objectively verified, but the resurrection is observable when you can see a man killed and then see him alive again.

This line of reasoning is terribly flawed and should necessarily cause you to reject premise (2), which you said you accept, among many other premises you likely accept. Like every event from the distant past the resurrection of Jesus is not directly observable and cannot be objectively verified.

I meant that something would have to be observable, in principle. Jesus's post-mortem appearances would have been an observable event which is why there were witnesses. Basically, I'm trying to find a reasonable way to accommodate the supernatural from a historical standpoint. The current standard of historians involves using common experience as background knowledge to weigh the validity of historical claims. I think that is problematic because it leads historians to either ignore or reject supernatural accounts no matter how well documented it is. I find that to be no different than how scientists refuse to investigate UFOs despite there being well-documented cases.

The resurrection itself is not observable by us today nor was it directly observed by any of the witnesses. No one was in the tomb with Jesus. You accept it as the best explanation of basic facts such as Jesus was dead, buried, then seen alive. Yet, you won’t accept the explanation that is was God who raised Jesus from the dead is the best explanation weighed against other explanations such as advanced aliens.

Not saying my standard is perfect, but if you or anyone else, can offer something better that allows for the supernatural and preserves some reasonableness, then I'm all ears.

I think I’ve done that. The arguments I gave are certainly reasonable.

I'd want to know if we should accept that Jesus visited different spiritual realms just because multiple sources reported that? What about stories about Joseph Smith's golden plates and his witnesses and how that started Mormonism shortly after?

All interesting questions, but irrelevant for now. There’s really not much point going into any of this if you don’t accept premise (1) of my arguments. It seems like such a non-controversial premise compared to premise (2).

[Goose]

If the Bible is true, my Pig can fly
My pig can fly,
Therefore the Bible is true.

Classic affirming the consequent fallacy you've got there.

Thank you. Then you Ought to understand that your propositions are also fallacies unless you can validate the claim that Jesus did resurrect.

You are revealing a profound misunderstanding of correct argumentation with these posts where you put up clearly fallacious arguments and say incorrect things like “propositions are also fallacies.” Propositions themselves are not “also fallacies”. Propositions are truth bearing statements, i.e. they are either true or false. Propositions form the premises of arguments and it’s those arguments which can be fallacious, not the premises. And if the argument is fallacious it is invalid. Your flying pig argument is fallacious because it quite blatantly commits the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Both of my arguments that you responded to (in this post) are valid. The first argument takes the valid form modus ponens and the second argument is modus tollens. The first premise of the second argument is the contrapositive of the first premise of the first argument. Both those arguments I gave are valid and they would remain valid even if I could not completely establish premise (2) or if premise (2) were shown false. If a premise were false the argument would be unsound.

I have given other possibilities which you have ignored.

Where did I ignore these? You posted this to me before I had a chance to even respond as far as I can see.

I elaborate:

(1)The stories are made up, which is why they contradict. That is the claims of resurrection are not reliable.

What is the evidence they were made up? Contradictions themselves do not necessarily imply “made up.” You and I have been over this ad nauseam. Remember this exchange? Indeed the contradiction argument seems to be your favorite. Your position, as I showed you starting here, is untenable as it leads to the absurdity that virtually all of ancient history can be dismissed as made up since so much of it contradicts. You couldn’t even properly defend your belief in the Siege of Jerusalem in that exchange without committing a blatant double standard. In the end, your argument boiled down to the subjective position that the contradictions in the Gospels are really bad. Even though I showed you how other events you consider historical have contradictions that are just as bad. Do we need to revisit that thread?

(1a) Jesus died and his body was taken away, or he didn't die and he was taken away alive.

What is the evidence for this? Who took his body away? Where did they take it? Why did they take it? How does this explain the conversion of Paul?

Such 'natural' explanations are at least as likely as the supernatural miracle, even if the Bible -writers didn't consider them.

Such explanations not only lack evidence they do not explain all the facts. Further your appeal here to probability is based on what?

[Goose]

No, I’m saying your version of the argument is invalid. You don't get to add a bunch of untenable stuff to my premises and then call it my argument.
It’s not my premise. As you admit here you inserted and added things to my argument thereby making it a different argument, i.e. your argument.
You should, you should address the argument I’ve made. Not your strawman version of it. That would help you avoid many of the irrational counter arguments you’ve been trying to make.
My argument said nothing whatsoever about committing atrocities. It didn’t even imply it. If someone were to get “therefore, commit atrocities” from my argument they clearly aren’t reasoning correctly.

I never said it says.
I said such logic: “Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from God" can be used to overturn any human rational. That such logic can be used to commit atrocities. People already did so.
My point is about practicality of such a thing.
No need to whine.

On the contrary it’s not me who is whining. You are complaining about the argument because you think someone might use it (incorrectly) to justify atrocities. That’s not an argument against my argument, it’s a complaint about the argument. In short, it’s whining. Indeed, that seems to be about all you can muster. Your complaint is duly noted and filed.

A new distinct human life begins at conception. A five day old embryo is a very young human (assuming it’s a human embryo of course). Another name for a very young human is baby. I’m not the only one who uses the term baby in this way.
“It is during this first trimester that the fetus is most susceptible to damage from substances, like alcohol, drugs and certain medicines, and illnesses, like rubella (German measles). During the first trimester, your body and your baby’s body are changing rapidly.” – John Hopkins Medicine
“Through the first trimester, your baby goes from being a fertilised ovum to a foetus of about 6cm in length at 12 weeks. – Australian Government” – Department of Health
You may not prefer the term baby because of the implications, but the term is not logically incorrect.

Irrelevant.
My point was that a fetus few days old is not really a sentient being though, is not a non-moral agent, is not a person.
Ergo no suffering. No problem of evil and so on.

Your point was that “A 5 days embryo is not the same with a baby.” I showed you logically that’s incorrect, that a five day old human embryo is a baby. That you arbitrary draw the line at sentience is irrelevant.

But your premise still remains false despite your personal opinion about killing babies that meet your arbitrary criteria. You argued human reason is that killing babies is wrong. But there are many humans who do not reason killing babies is wrong. As I argued abortions in Canada are legal at any point in the pregnancy. Statistics from 2019 in Canada suggested that nearly 70% of abortions occur in the 9th week and later. Of the roughly 83,000 abortions that year only 17,421 occurred where gestational age was known at the time of the killing. Of that 703 (or 4%) babies were killed at 21 weeks or later. If we extrapolated that percentage out to the roughly 83,000 abortions that year, that implies there may have been approximately 3,300 babies killed after 21 weeks.

Dear sir let me spell out for you:

I never said all humans deemed it so as I did.

Yes you certainly did. Your premise was that:

“human reason(punishing and killing babies and animals, committing genocides is wrong).”

And that premise is patently false.

Punishing, inflicting suffering and killing a non-moral agent is wrong, moronic, immoral if logic and logical absolutes apply. That is truth no matter the universe and who does it: moronic human beings or extremely powerful beings.
Most human are morons and do not have a consistent morality. Off course they do not believe killing fully formed unborn babies is wrong. It is socially acceptable.
Aztecs sacrificed infants and no one batted an eye because was done in name of religion and because humans could condone the most awful things as long they are socially acceptable.

Yeah, you said that already.

But not al humans are morons sir. They are people like me, although rare.

Are they people like you? Okay, if you say so.

When you say it’s wrong in any universe, do you mean it’s necessarily true that killing babies is immoral?

Punishing, inflicting suffering and killing a non-moral agent is wrong, moronic, immoral, illogical.
Q: Do you not agree? (yes/no)

You aren’t answering my question. And yours is malformed. A rat is a non-moral agent and I don’t think killing a rat is immoral. You are also conflating immoral with illogical. Killing in self defence, for example, would be immoral but not necessarily illogical or moronic.