An original argument dedicated to my fellow theists that assert God is unverifiable:
I have faith that there's unverifiable gnomes that make my lawn grow. I have reasoned my faith is justified because the seemingly "natural" process of my lawn growing is actually the supernatural act of these unverifiable gnomes.
First line of thought:
My assumption is that *no* theist would be comfortable in believing such gnomes to exist, but then this begs the question (in regards to your [rational] application of faith in your god): why *wouldn't* you believe in unverifiable gnomes if you believe in an unverifiable god? What is the logical process that tells you belief in one is sensible but belief in the other isn't?
Second line of thought:
I'm assuming that no theist would believe in these gnomes because they think they don't exist. This means that an interpretation of these gnomes' unverifiable attribute is that it stems from pure non-existence, as opposed to the nature in which these gnomes inherently function which makes them unverifiable. The former, presumably, is *not* why the Judeo-Christian god is unverifiable. Instead, it is the latter: the way in which he acts *makes* him unverifiable. But this also begs the question: is the way he acts responsible for his unverifiable attribute(?), or does his unverifiable attribute acually stem from pure non-existence?
So why is belief in the unverifiable Judeo-Christian god reasonable but not in unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes (or other gods, the sphagetti monster, santa claus, the easter bunny etc.)? If no reason can be identified, then there are two conclusions you must be willing to accept to stay contradiction-free:
(1) Your faith is unjustified. This, to me, is analogous with the term "blind faith".
(2) From your (mysterious) ability to believe in something unverifiable without justification stems the ability to *also* believe in unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes, and negating such a belief would be irrational *unless* you can identify why *only* belief in God (but not other seemingly unverifiable entities) is rational.
I have faith that there's unverifiable gnomes that make my lawn grow. I have reasoned my faith is justified because the seemingly "natural" process of my lawn growing is actually the supernatural act of these unverifiable gnomes.
First line of thought:
My assumption is that *no* theist would be comfortable in believing such gnomes to exist, but then this begs the question (in regards to your [rational] application of faith in your god): why *wouldn't* you believe in unverifiable gnomes if you believe in an unverifiable god? What is the logical process that tells you belief in one is sensible but belief in the other isn't?
Second line of thought:
I'm assuming that no theist would believe in these gnomes because they think they don't exist. This means that an interpretation of these gnomes' unverifiable attribute is that it stems from pure non-existence, as opposed to the nature in which these gnomes inherently function which makes them unverifiable. The former, presumably, is *not* why the Judeo-Christian god is unverifiable. Instead, it is the latter: the way in which he acts *makes* him unverifiable. But this also begs the question: is the way he acts responsible for his unverifiable attribute(?), or does his unverifiable attribute acually stem from pure non-existence?
So why is belief in the unverifiable Judeo-Christian god reasonable but not in unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes (or other gods, the sphagetti monster, santa claus, the easter bunny etc.)? If no reason can be identified, then there are two conclusions you must be willing to accept to stay contradiction-free:
(1) Your faith is unjustified. This, to me, is analogous with the term "blind faith".
(2) From your (mysterious) ability to believe in something unverifiable without justification stems the ability to *also* believe in unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes, and negating such a belief would be irrational *unless* you can identify why *only* belief in God (but not other seemingly unverifiable entities) is rational.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
