Answer

Jasmyn. You keep telling me that the testimony of believers in Vuntag can be absolutely relied upon as proof of Vuntag's existence. But by that logic, the testimony of believers in Phobodisda can be absolutely relied upon as proof of Phobodisda's existence. So if Vuntag exists, so too does Phobodisda. Since they can't both exist, the rule that testimony of believers constitutes absolute proof can't work for anyone, not even Vuntag.
Efren. The trouble with that reasoning is that you are suppressing a vital piece of evidence. Vuntagian testimony can be relied upon as proof of Vuntag's existence, because it is backed by divine revelation from Vuntag, but Phobodisdan testimony cannot be relied upon as proof of the existence of Phobodisda because it is not backed by divine revelation from Vuntag.

I think this one will be more clear if we start with Efren's original argument for the existence of Vuntag.

The testimony of Vuntag believers is backed by divine revelation from Vuntag.
The testimony of Vuntag believers says that Vuntag exists.
Vuntag exists. (Authority -- direct argument)

Now here's Jasmyn's argument.

If the testimony of Vuntag believers proves that Vuntag exists, then the testimony of Phobodisda believers proves that Phobodisda exists.
It cannot be true that both Vuntag and Phobodisda exist.
The testimony of Vuntag believers cannot prove that Vuntag exists. (Deductive -- counter argument.)

And here is Efren's reply.

The testimony of Vuntag believers is backed by divine revelation from Vuntag.
The testimony of Phobodisda believers is not backed by divine revelation from Vuntag.
The testimony of Vuntag believers can prove that Vuntag exists. (Deductive -- counter to Jasmyn's argument)

Efren assumes that the testimony of Vuntag believers is backed by divine revelation from Vuntag while the testimony of Phobodisda believers is not backed by equally effective divine revelation from Phobodisda. But how can he assume this? He can't, so he is committing a form of special pleading, because he applies one rule to Vuntag believers, and a different rule to believers in Phobodisda.

Critique.

On the logic given above, the testimony of believers cannot be taken as proof that Vuntag exists. Jasmyn is basically attacking an earlier, unstated argument that testimony can prove the existence of Vuntag by showing that it's basic principle (testimony proves existence) would also prove the existence of another god whose existence is incompatible with that of Vuntag. Efren attempts to rebut Joan's argument by claiming there's a difference between the two cases. However, this "difference" is just his presumption that Vuntag exists to provide divine revelation, a presumption that could equally well be made for Phobodisda. Since Efren wants to allow this presumption for his side but deny it for the other side, his argument commits special pleading and thereby fails.

Use back key to return.

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: