Satan Disproves Christianity

[Bad Writer]

And around we go. Yay.

[FallentoReason]

Again, to start, no one to my knowledge has claimed to have seen or heard gnomes, while people have claimed to have seen and heard god.

But *I'm* claiming that my grass growing means there must be unverifiable gnomes doing the said grass growing. You might find such a thought ridiculous or suspect that I'm purely making up this thought experiment in order to inspect your metaphysical conduct, but none of this matters. What matters is that you believe an unverifiable entity acts upon this universe, much like I say unverifiable gnomes act upon grass to make it grow. Our claims are equal in terms of indirect evidence, but not surprisingly, you fervently reject even the mere thought of me asking you questions about unverifiable gnomes. What do I see as the problem here? That integrity doesn't seem to be something that you hold to. There's a double standard at play, and if your conclusion is that we shouldn't believe in unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes because it's ridiculous, implausible etc. then so be it. Just let it be known that these unverifiable gnomes are a metaphor - a metaphysical replica of *your god* - and thus, to be fair to you, I'll apply *your* standards to your unverifiable bud. Or maybe, you can finally explain your reasoning for why you can confidently say unverifiable gnomes don't exist, but an unverifiable sky daddy does. Until then, your beliefs are begging the question => you are believing blindly as far as *you're* letting me know.

[Esquilax]

Hey John, why don't you replace the word "gnome" with the name of any god that you don't believe in. Any at all. That'll satisfy your requirements that people make the claim of having seen or heard or otherwise experienced this unverified thing, plus there would be people who wouldn't recant around pressure to.

Because the name of the phenomenon isn't actually the important part of the question. I think you know this, which is why you're deflecting.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Again, to start, no one to my knowledge has claimed to have seen or heard gnomes, while people have claimed to have seen and heard god.

As Esquilax has pointed out, there have been billions of people who have claimed to have heard their non-Christian god talk to them too.

So, where does one go from here? Are they just wrong and you're right? How do we know?

If we're just using testimony as evidence, then really, I can testify that I've spoken to gnomes and they've spoken to me and you would have to take my claim as factually true.

I think you see the issue with your standpoint from this perspective.

[John V]

No. Testimony needs to be backed up by evidence. It alone cannot stand as evidence.

It can to most people. You don't get to decide what constitutes valid evidence for anyone but yourself.

---

Hey John, why don't you replace the word "gnome" with the name of any god that you don't believe in. Any at all. That'll satisfy your requirements that people make the claim of having seen or heard or otherwise experienced this unverified thing, plus there would be people who wouldn't recant around pressure to.

I've done that here with Zeus and Allah.

Because the name of the phenomenon isn't actually the important part of the question. I think you know this, which is why you're deflecting.

The nature of the claim can indeed be important. I would approach (actually have approached) IPU differently than Allah, and Zeus differently than either of those.

---

But *I'm* claiming that my grass growing means there must be unverifiable gnomes doing the said grass growing. You might find such a thought ridiculous or suspect that I'm purely making up this thought experiment in order to inspect your metaphysical conduct, but none of this matters.

I disagree. If you're admittedly making this up, that certainly matters. You guys look pretty silly claiming otherwise, so continue to do so if you like.

[Esquilax]

It can to most people. You don't get to decide what constitutes valid evidence for anyone but yourself.

Okay, I agree with you in part. Testimony counts as evidence. However, things are more complicated than that...

Ever wonder why we have perjury laws? Because people can lie during testimony; we don't assume that what everyone says is truthful just because they swore or affirmed it, after all.

Also, what about competing testimony? Religions do this a lot; there's 30,000 denominations of your religion, and many of them have directly contradictory claims in terms of their rules, and individual adherents often exhibit contradictory revelations. Isaac Newton's personal experience with god, for example, told him that considering Jesus to be god was idolatry, and that they were separate people. How do we decide which testimony is the correct one?

What about all the religions you don't believe in? Alien abduction stories? Every weird claim that happens to have testimony attached? How do we tell which is true and which is not?

Oh, right. Evidence.

Testimony might be fine to you, but if it is evidence, it's weak evidence, especially with regards to fantastical claims. That's the crux of the thought experiment we're trying to do with you here; we're trying to show you that unverifiable testimony isn't a reliable way to get to the truth.

[John V]

Okay, I agree with you in part. Testimony counts as evidence. However, things are more complicated than that...

Ever wonder why we have perjury laws? Because people can lie during testimony; we don't assume that what everyone says is truthful just because they swore or affirmed it, after all.

Of course not. As I already mentioned, when someone doesn't recant in the face of personal loss, that's generally judged as stronger testimony than that of some who does recant. To your point on perjury, that's why sworn testimony is generally judged as stronger than casual testimony - the person making sworn testimony could suffer personal loss if caught lying.

Also, what about competing testimony? Religions do this a lot; there's 30,000 denominations of your religion, and many of them have directly contradictory claims in terms of their rules, and individual adherents often exhibit contradictory revelations. Isaac Newton's personal experience with god, for example, told him that considering Jesus to be god was idolatry, and that they were separate people. How do we decide which testimony is the correct one?

To start, we can continue with the same principle. Newton would have suffered loss had he publicized his view, and he didn't publicize it. He lacked the confidence that Paul had in proclaiming that Jesus was god.

What about all the religions you don't believe in? Alien abduction stories? Every weird claim that happens to have testimony attached? How do we tell which is true and which is not?

Again, I've covered such things in the past. If I must I can do so again, but pick one thing at a time in order to keep it manageable.

Testimony might be fine to you, but if it is evidence, it's weak evidence, especially with regards to fantastical claims. That's the crux of the thought experiment we're trying to do with you here; we're trying to show you that unverifiable testimony isn't a reliable way to get to the truth.

You're not doing a good job of it. Arguing that you don't understand the difference between a book marked as biography and one marked as fiction (a reasonable conclusion from your argument that it doesn't matter if someone admits making up a claim) certainly doesn't help.

[Esquilax]

You're not doing a good job of it. Arguing that you don't understand the difference between a book marked as biography and one marked as fiction (a reasonable conclusion from your argument that it doesn't matter if someone admits making up a claim) certainly doesn't help.

Which is why I asked you to switch out the gnomes with literally any god you can imagine. The noun isn't at issue here, and nor is the conviction or willingness to be harmed that a person exhibits over it; after all, people have been killed for plenty of religions by refusing to recant. It's not like yours has some unique condition that the others do not.

[John V]

Which is why I asked you to switch out the gnomes with literally any god you can imagine. The noun isn't at issue here,

It was, and it may still be. We don't know if the others involved are also conceding the gnome case.

and nor is the conviction or willingness to be harmed that a person exhibits over it; after all, people have been killed for plenty of religions by refusing to recant. It's not like yours has some unique condition that the others do not.

That means that all of those are better supported than gnomes.

[Esquilax]

It was, and it may still be. We don't know if the others involved are also conceding the gnome case.

You can ask the others about the gnomes. I, for one, don't care about them.

That means that all of those are better supported than gnomes.

But not supported enough to believe in, in your book? Why is that? I mean, it's the same level of support as the bible.