Satan Disproves Christianity

[John V]

By "answer the question" I meant go back to my paragraph where you only responded to the first few sentences.

You're being intellectually dishonest by continually avoiding the question. This isn't worth my time, so I'll once again conclude you're believing blindly, without any justification for why one unverifiable entity exists over any other.

FtR out.

You wrote a rambling mess with no clear question. Here it is:

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.

It's mostly a rant full of unsupported assertions. The only clear question is a rhetorical question to yourself. The only other thing resembling a question is:

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.

But, as I haven't confidently said that gnomes don't exist (as I've asked for information on the claimant and have received none), it's a nonsensical question.

If you want a question answered, ask a clear and meaningful question.

---

But gnomes isn't a made up claim. It is a known claim.

Then give me information on the claim, as I've requested before, and I'll consider it.

---

You have none.

Quit posting and go bus table 14, dishboy.

[FallentoReason]

But, as I haven't confidently said that gnomes don't exist (as I've asked for information on the claimant and have received none), it's a nonsensical question.

Your metaphysical interactions with your god are no different to metaphysical interactions with unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you still can't grasp that thought, but there it is as plainly as I can put it. Now, I would also assume that to a rational person, such a realisation would be rather grim, because applying belief to a gnome just like you apply it to your god is... well... *insane*.... unless you have reasons for why you believe in God in such a way that you might as well be believing in unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes. Can you explain yourself please?

[John V]

Your metaphysical interactions with your god are no different to metaphysical interactions with unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you still can't grasp that thought, but there it is as plainly as I can put it. Now, I would also assume that to a rational person, such a realisation would be rather grim, because applying belief to a gnome just like you apply it to your god is... well... *insane*.... unless you have reasons for why you believe in God in such a way that you might as well be believing in unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes. Can you explain yourself please?

My arguments so far have had nothing to do with metaphysical interactions, whatever that is. My arguments have been based on examination of the originators of the different concepts and their claims, possible motivations, and behaviors. So far, no one has been able to even show me a serious claim regarding the existence of gnomes. For all I know, the originators of gnomes were admittedly making them up and had no intent that anyone believe gnomes are real. Some Biblical authors OTOH specifically said that they were reporting actual occurrences with the intent that the readers believe. Again, rational people place a higher probability on the accuracy of books from the history or biography sections than books from the fiction section. Doesn't mean that the histories or biographies are necessarily accurate, but when an author admits the works is fiction, we're nearly certain that it isn't accurate.

[FallentoReason]

Your metaphysical interactions with your god are no different to metaphysical interactions with unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you still can't grasp that thought, but there it is as plainly as I can put it. Now, I would also assume that to a rational person, such a realisation would be rather grim, because applying belief to a gnome just like you apply it to your god is... well... *insane*.... unless you have reasons for why you believe in God in such a way that you might as well be believing in unverifiable lawn-growing gnomes. Can you explain yourself please?

My arguments so far have had nothing to do with metaphysical interactions, whatever that is. My arguments have been based on examination of the originators of the different concepts and their claims, possible motivations, and behaviors. So far, no one has been able to even show me a serious claim regarding the existence of gnomes. For all I know, the originators of gnomes were admittedly making them up and had no intent that anyone believe gnomes are real. Some Biblical authors OTOH specifically said that they were reporting actual occurrences with the intent that the readers believe. Again, rational people place a higher probability on the accuracy of books from the history or biography sections than books from the fiction section. Doesn't mean that the histories or biographies are necessarily accurate, but when an author admits the works is fiction, we're nearly certain that it isn't accurate.

By "metaphysical interactions" I mean the way in which you "engage" with your god specifically when it comes to belief/faith. Philosophically speaking, you might as well believe in gnomes.

[John V]

By "metaphysical interactions" I mean the way in which you "engage" with your god specifically when it comes to belief/faith. Philosophically speaking, you might as well believe in gnomes.

We're not speaking of engagement and philosophy. We're speaking of belief and evidence.

[FallentoReason]

By "metaphysical interactions" I mean the way in which you "engage" with your god specifically when it comes to belief/faith. Philosophically speaking, you might as well believe in gnomes.

We're not speaking of engagement and philosophy. We're speaking of belief and evidence.

Yeah, because belief and evidence aren't topics within philosophy.

[John V]

Yeah, because belief and evidence aren't topics within philosophy.

OK, then we're not speaking of engagement, we're speaking of evidence. I've shown differences in evidence for different beliefs, and so you're now throwing in engagement as a red herring.

[Brian37]

Yeah, because belief and evidence aren't topics within philosophy.

OK, then we're not speaking of engagement, we're speaking of evidence. I've shown differences in evidence for different beliefs, and so you're now throwing in engagement as a red herring.

Would "engagement" work as an argument for you if a Muslim were arguing for Allah using that word?

Would "evidence" work as an argument for you if a Muslim were arguing for Allah using that word?

I hate to burst your bubble but there is no difference between their naked assertion and yours. It still amounts to an imaginary sky daddy.

[FallentoReason]

Yeah, because belief and evidence aren't topics within philosophy.

OK, then we're not speaking of engagement, we're speaking of evidence. I've shown differences in evidence for different beliefs, and so you're now throwing in engagement as a red herring.

So you engaging with your god via faith/belief is a red herring to the topic? Jeez... here I was thinking 95% of discussions on this forum are to do precisely with that!

[Airyaman]

@ John V, you may not like the idea of gnomes but what about fairies?

http://www.realitywalker.com/nature-spir...f-fairies/

There you go, people who speak of fairy encounters. How are these people any different from the biblical writers who claimed to encounter Yahweh?