On Unverifiable Entities

[FallentoReason]

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.

[Faith No More]

I think any justification they make to differentiate between god and your gnomes will eventually be shown to rest on the cosmological argument, which is why they will feel justified in believing in god and not the gnomes. The problem is that I have never even seen a Christian attempt to make the logical argument that the first cause is Yaweh without referencing the bible in a circular manner.

[max-greece]

If you don't have a 2000 year old book to back up your claims they can be ignored.

An exception is made for Islam where said book can be as little as 1300 years old - but that was a special case.

Now if you can find a really old text we can talk.

(Hint: Might be better to look for one on faeries rather than gnomes).

[Bob Kelso]

I really like this argument and may use variations of it in the future. Although I'll have to agree that they will back up their faith through the use of their 'holy' books. It's always the theist stonewall argument, any attempts to get them to talk about their faith outside the bible will result in tantrums or a complete disregard for the arguments foundation.

Personally I attribute this to an incapability to think outside of the circular answers they pick up from others of the same faith.

[Minimalist]

If you don't have a 2000 year old book to back up your claims they can be ignored.

[FallentoReason]

It doesn't matter that a book about gnomes doesn't exist. This argument simply highlights the metaphysical non-sequitur that their faith requires them to put into action. In fact, replace "gnomes" with "Judeo-Christian god" and you get the same thing. Just like grass growing can't be proof of *unverifiable* gnomes, so too with the content of the Bible and the unverifiable YHWH. Thus, the thrust of the argument is, well, why put unjustified faith in something *defined* as unprovable? It's blind faith for no good reason, and that my friends, is *always* indicative that the thing you're dealing with is a cult/scam etc.

Once this argument is fleshed out in your mind, I think you'll understand what I mean when I say I never associate techniques of deceit with potentially attaining more truth.