The Origin of the Gods

[WonderBeat]

The default logical and intellectual position is that they do not exist unless shown otherwise.

Right. But, I have pointed out that there are problems and implausibilities with the position that they do not exist (in other words, that they are myths). Thus, it follows that it is more reasonable to believe they do exist. Once one ship is sunk, another must rise.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Right. But, I have pointed out that there are problems and implausibilities with the position that they do not exist (in other words, that they are myths).

Have you? I haven't noticed.

Thus, it follows that it is more reasonable to believe they do exist. Once one ship is sunk, another must rise.

Note that making one option less plausible does not suddenly make the alternative(s) more plausible.

 

[WonderBeat]

Have you? I haven't noticed.

Oh, I have. In my lengthy response to Paradoxum on the first page. You are free to prove me wrong as long as you engage with the point-by-point analysis I laid out.

Note that making one option less plausible does not suddenly make the alternative(s) more plausible.

Not typically. But here we are only dealing with two options: either Gods exist or they don't. Thus, per the law of excluded middle, if one option is rendered obsolete, the other one has to be right. I could be wrong of course, but you need to actually argue with me, not just shout down my case into oblivion.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I believe it is eminently logical.

Reality doesn't care what you believe.

We all assert what we believe to be the case

The difference is you have zero evidence to support what you've said.

That would take a while and to be honest I am not very skilled at laying out precise syllogisms.

It need not be a classical syllogism. Concise premises with a conclusion will do.

I'll wait.

Naked assertion.

You have it exactly backwards. You claimed to be engaging in 'common sense', when in fact you were merely asserting things you believed to be true, which does not fall under any definition of 'common sense'. The naked assertion is yours, not mine.

You really don't know what you're doing here.

Naked Assertion.

Don't use that term if you don't know what it means.

[HINT: Calling an opinion a 'naked assertion' is itself a fallacy of category error]

I have already made my case.

If that was your case, then you have nothing.

The burden is shifted onto you pal.

Actually, you can't simply decree your way out of the burden of proof. It's still yours.

 

[madaz]

What say you people about the origin of the gods? Are they only myths?

The flying spaghetti monster is the one and only true god. All others are of mythical origins.

If so, how are they only myths?

Because they are defined within mythology.

What is your evidence?

The myths.

If that evidence is lacking, internally inconsistent, or otherwise implausible, how willing are you to accept that the gods are in fact real?

The evidence is not lacking, spaghetti is all around us, I'm not willing to accept polytheistic possibilities, there is only one true god.

The flying spaghetti monster!

Personally, I have no doubt that the gods exist. I believe there is evidence for their existence but what is more the evidence that they are merely myths is so lacking in my view (so lacking that even a child can see the absurdity in taking such explanations seriously) that that itself constitutes powerful grounds for accepting the gods' existence as real.

What say you?

There is evidence of pasta, in many shapes and forms, but pastafaria is a monotheistic ideology, so I'll reiterate, only one god is real.

The flying spaghetti monster!

 

[WonderBeat]

Reality doesn't care what you believe.

You don't know what reality is (reality being logical) if you don't understand what I'm getting at.

The difference is you have zero evidence to support what you've said.

Another naked assertion! Please, please PLEASE back up what you're saying! Otherwise, be quiet.

It need not be a classical syllogism. Concise premises

That's what I've done!

You have it exactly backwards. You claimed to be engaging in 'common sense', when in fact you were merely asserting things you believed to be true, which does not fall under any definition of 'common sense'. The naked assertion is yours, not mine.

Do you even know what common sense is?

You really don't know what you're doing here.

I could say the exact same for yourself.

Don't use that term if you don't know what it means.

[HINT: Calling an opinion a 'naked assertion' is itself a fallacy of category error]

I do know what it means, and your opinions sir I believe are totally groundless. That's why they're naked assertions.

If that was your case, then you have nothing.

If these are all the criticisms you have, then you have nothing to argue against my case.

Actually, you can't simply decree your way out of the burden of proof. It's still yours.

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

...Next!

 

[WonderBeat]

The flying spaghetti monster is the one and only true god. All others are of mythical origins.

Do you mean that sincerely? If not, why are you saying that?

Because they are defined within mythology.

Circular reasoning.

The myths.

More circular reasoning.

The evidence is not lacking, spaghetti is all around us, I'm not willing to accept polytheistic possibilities, there is only one true god.

Satire in place of a substantive point.

The flying spaghetti monster!

::Snore::

There is evidence of pasta, in many shapes and forms, but pastafaria is a monotheistic ideology, so I'll reiterate, only one god is real.

The flying spaghetti monster!

Nope. Nothing serious or worthwhile here folks!

Oy, is there anyone here who's interested in having an INTELLIGENT debate?

WHERE IS THE INTELLIGENCE!!!!!???? IM BEGGING YOU!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You don't know what reality is (reality being logical) if you don't understand what I'm getting at.

You don't understand what you're getting at. You keep making self-congratulatory references to logic, but have shown zero comprehension of what it is.

You also commit extremely basic fallacies, then turn around and attempt to accuse others of them. Case in point...

Another naked assertion!

Did you ever in your life use that term before I used it on you? I don't think so, because you have yet to use it correctly.

That's what I've done!

No you haven't. This isn't something that's up for debate.

p1 - Logic is reasoning conducted, assessed or studied according to strict principles of validity
p2 - You repeatedly refer to your own vacuous naked assertions as 'logic'
c - You have no idea what 'logic' is

That's what concise premises followed by a conclusion looks like. You've presented nothing like that anywhere in this thread.

Do you even know what common sense is?

Yes.

I could say the exact same for yourself.

You could say it, yes, but it wouldn't mean anything.

I do know what it means

No you don't, because you used it incorrectly.

If these are all the criticisms you have

These are all the criticisms I need. When you provide something substantive, I'll respond to it in kind. All you've offered so far are the contents of your imagination.

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

Then you have extremely poor reading comprehension to go with your abysmal reasoning skills.

 

[WonderBeat]

You don't understand what you're getting at. You keep making self-congratulatory references to logic, but have shown zero comprehension of what it is.

That is your claim. You have yet to substantiate any of your accusations that I am somehow using reason wrongly. I am waiting.....

You also commit extremely basic fallacies, then turn around and attempt to accuse others of them.
Case in point...

::reeling with anticipation::

Did you ever in your life use that term before I used it on you? I don't think so, because you have yet to use it correctly.

Logical Fallacies by Todangst - FreeThoughtPedia

"A "naked" assertion is simply an assertion without any evidence, proof, or other support."

I would say your accusations fall into that department...

No you haven't. This isn't something that's up for debate.

Your accusations are patently groundless.

Yes.

Be in denial all you want but that won't make you right....

You could say it, yes, but it wouldn't mean anything.

I am wondering whether anything you say means anything, your piling up of accusation after accusation without anything to back them up...

No you don't, because you used it incorrectly.

Nope. I am well-aware of the definition.

These are all the criticisms I need. When you provide something substantive, I'll respond to it in kind. All you've offered so far are the contents of your imagination.

All this time you have given me nothing but baseless accusations, nakedly asserting that I am committing all sorts of fallacies without being able to name ONE (well, besides the one about naked assertions..).

Then you have extremely poor reading comprehension to go with your abysmal reasoning skills.

For your information, I'm in grad school and was a double History and Philosophy Major in College. I passed all my classes with flying colors.

 

[Ken-1122]

Let's say an extinct creature for which we have no data existed in the past. There are no fossils for it. But one surely did exist, because the fossil record is incomplete. We may disagree and have conflicting claims about its place in the evolutionary scale of things. But it did exist. Just so, people have made claims of God, that they revealed themselves to us in the past. They have competing claims because, in the course of history the records have been distorted due to the corruption of the Age. And yet, still something concrete surfaces.

I think the different claims of various Gods differ much more than the scenario you gave about where this creature exists on the evolutionary scale. If one person claimed in your scenario that this creature was a land animal, another claimed it could only live in the sea and another claimed it flew like a bird in the air, I think that would be more like the differences between the various Gods people claim exists, and I would doubt the claims of these people; especially if these people admit they never even seen this creature.( most who write about God admit they never seen their God with their own eyes. Yeah lots of people wrote about Jesus but not everybody claims he was God.)

What makes no sense to you or I may have made much more sense to older, enlightened beings.

I think you’ve got it a little backwards. The reason some of the claims of the bible don’t make sense is because of our current enlighten; the people of the past were ignorant in comparison. Example; we now know the earth is round and that it revolves around the Sun rather than the other way around; something the people who wrote the Bible obviously did not know. Because of these facts some of the stuff in the bible no longer makes any sense.

Ken

 

[WonderBeat]

I should have said you are unable to substantiate your assertions that I am committing all sorts of fallacies. Yes, you named a couple, but that itself does not amount to proof.....

 

[WonderBeat]

I think the different claims of various Gods differ much more than the scenario you gave about where this creature exists on the evolutionary scale. If one person claimed in your scenario that this creature was a land animal, another claimed it could only live in the sea and another claimed it flew like a bird in the air, I think that would be more like the differences between the various Gods people claim exists, and I would doubt the claims of these people; especially if these people admit they never even seen this creature.( most who write about God admit they never seen their God with their own eyes. Yeah lots of people wrote about Jesus but not everybody claims he was God.)

You have a good point about the disagreements between religionists about their Gods. I would say this applies only partially to God himself, and that there are more overlaps especially in the fields of religious studies... Regarding pluralistic Gods however, many could be right about different Gods, so I do not see a problem there.

I think you’ve got it a little backwards. The reason some of the claims of the bible don’t make sense is because of our current enlighten; the people of the past were ignorant in comparison. Example; we now know the earth is round and that it revolves around the Sun rather than the other way around; something the people who wrote the Bible obviously did not know. Because of these facts some of the stuff in the bible no longer makes any sense.

Ken

You are right that we have made more advancements in material knowledge. However, that is not what is key. What is key is spiritual advancement, and the reception of eternal knowledge. That is what ultimately matters and what all serious seekers of truth ought to look after, regardless of denominations. God does not care for denominations.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

That is your claim. You have yet to substantiate any of your accusations that I am somehow using reason wrongly.

Your position is predicated on naked assertions. It doesn't get any more basic than that when it comes to 'reasoning wrongly'.

Logical Fallacies by Todangst - FreeThoughtPedia

"A "naked" assertion is simply an assertion without any evidence, proof, or other support."

Thanks. I've talked online with the guy who wrote that article, back when the RRS board was a thing.

It doesn't make a difference, but I do find it funny that you would cite an atheist in making your case.

It's also funny that this is the first entry that pops up when you type 'naked assertion' into google. Is that a coincidence, or did you have to look it up?

I would say your accusations fall into that department...

No, my accusations of you committing naked assertions are not themselves naked assertions, as anyone can plainly see by simply reviewing your previous posts in this thread. Nowhere did you substantiate a single point you made about the nature of 'primitive man' or anything else. You merely stated it.

Your accusations are patently groundless.

Except for the part where I very clearly laid out what premises and a conclusion looks like, and the fact that you've provided nothing like that anywhere in this thread.

All this time you have given me nothing but baseless accusations, nakedly asserting that I am committing all sorts of fallacies without being able to name ONE.

I named three, actually. Naked assertion, shifting the burden of proof, category error.

For your information, I'm in grad school and was a double History and Philosophy Major in College. I passed all my classes with flying colors.

I don't care if you're Aristotle, Albert Einstein and Frank Zappa occupying a single brain. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

 

[WonderBeat]

Your position is predicated on naked assertions. It doesn't not get any more basic than that when it comes to 'reasoning wrongly'.

I do not see how the conclusions I reach are on the basis of naked assertions. Please enlighten me as to how I do this.

Thanks. I've talked online with the guy who wrote that article, back when the RRS board was a thing.

It doesn't make a difference, but I do find it funny that you would cite an atheist in making your case.

What difference?

It's also funny that this is the first entry that pops up when you type 'naked assertion' into google. Is that a coincidence, or did you have to look it up?

I did not have to look it up. "Naked assertion" as a term is pretty self explanatory.

No, my accusations of you committing naked assertions are not themselves naked assertions, as anyone can plainly see by simply reviewing your previous posts in this thread. Nowhere did you substantiate a single point you made about the nature of 'primitive man' or anything else. You merely stated it.

Naked assertions they are and naked assertions they remain. I did not state my case but argued it on the basis of common sense. If you would like to debate one of the points I brought up, be my guest. However, if you are interested only in name-calling and adding to your count of unsubstantiated criticisms of me, then we can dance the whole night... if you really want.

Except for the part where I very clearly laid out what premises and a conclusion looks like, and the fact that you've provided nothing like that anywhere in this thread.

Perhaps not explicitly, but in my analysis of belief formation and primitive human beings, I did indeed analyze on the basis of various premises and how they did not hold water given other premises.

I named three, actually. Naked assertion, shifting the burden of proof, category error.

Fair enough. I acted in some haste, actually. I should have said you hurled accusations without anything to base them on.

I don't care if you're Aristotle, Albert Einstein and Frank Zappa occupying a single brain. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

If you would like to discuss my positions merits or demerits, you are my perfect guest. However, if you want to continue this merry-go-round then quite clearly you are simply wasting my time.

 

[Ken-1122]

You have a good point about the disagreements between religionists about their Gods. I would say this applies only partially to God himself, and that there are more overlaps especially in the fields of religious studies... Regarding pluralistic Gods however, many could be right about different Gods, so I do not see a problem there.

I see it as a problem because God has never revealed himself to me and those who claim he has revealed himself to don’t agree on the claim. For me this is evidence that God doesn’t exist

You are right that we have made more advancements in material knowledge. However, that is not what is key. What is key is spiritual advancement, and the reception of eternal knowledge. That is what ultimately matters and what all serious seekers of truth ought to look after, regardless of denominations. God does not care for denominations.

For me, credibility is important; and when someone tells a story that we now know is impossible, such as the claim that God had a man raise his arms to prevent the Sun from setting in order for his army to win the war; 2 of his men had to hold his arms up because they got tired and as long as his arms were up they would win the war. Now we now know that the Earth rotates and in order for it to appear that the Sun stops moving the Earth would have to quit rotating. We also know the Earth spins at approx 2000 mph so to stop the sun from setting, the 2000 mph spinning Earth would have to come to a grinding halt. Can you imagine the effect momentum would have on structures, trees, and life on Earth if everything suddenly stopped at 2000 mph? I see such a claim as a lie thus everything else they claim becomes suspect. If I am gonna look for truth and knowledge, I would rather look elsewhere.

Ken

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I do not see how the conclusions I reach are on the basis of naked assertions. Please enlighten me as to how I do this.

You do this by not supporting your assertions with evidence. There is literally nothing to address until you remedy this fact.

If you really are confused as to where to start, the beginning is as good a place as any,

1. Why should stone aged people have even pondered where the world came from? It is, here and now, a brutal and challenging place, why speculate about it more than that? This would never have made any sense to me, that a God "made" the world - were I foraging human, that is. This argument or line of thought would only make sense as a relatively recent phenomenon - such as an Uncaused Cause argument, as they formulated in the Middle Ages. Otherwise, I am struggling for my next meal, and the concept of God creating the world (which requires a complex notion of causality lest you are willing to subscribe to the notion of creation ex nihilo - also a relatively advanced concept) is a non-starter. Also, the idea that the world "came to be" is less intuitive than that it always was. Unless you were inculcated from an early age that it indeed was created.

The underlying claim here is that a primitive human cannot have conceived of a god that created the world.

The only support you offer for this is aimless speculation about what would make sense to a 'foraging human' - something you are in no position to know anything about. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. It falls into the doldrums of 'not even wrong', and your conclusion is necessarily erroneous.

if you want to continue this merry-go-round then quite clearly you are simply wasting my time.

I have exchanges like this for the benefit of people reading along. Not for me, and absolutely not for you.

 

[WonderBeat]

You do this by not supporting your assertions with evidence. There is literally nothing to address until you remedy this fact.

I think you are either blind or deluded if you think this way. I do in fact provide evidence, it's just not as obviously stated as you would like, I think.

If you really are confused as to where to start, the beginning is as good a place as any,

Excellent! Let us start there then.

The underlying claim here is that a primitive human cannot have conceived of a god that created the world.

Yes, but very specifically with regards to the fact that a world is not enough to warrant faith in any kind of deity. The world "is." It lacks any kind of sufficient context for it to provide a blueprint - the roadmap as it were - towards belief formation in a deity. But you are more or less correct here.

The only support you offer for this is aimless speculation about what would make sense to a 'foraging human' - something you are in no position to know anything about.

Wrong. I am in a position to know about the facticity of a world, of an entity, and what conclusions may be drawn therefrom while not straying solely from that one fact. How can a formful, external cause in the form of a deity be drawn from the existence of a world? How can those elements arise when all you have is a world? It is logically unsound. One would have to look at other areas which would serve as a larger context for this to happen - the power of philosophical arguments, that God is somehow fruitive in some ways, etc. Basing the existence of God on the existence of a world is not straightforward. It is circuitous in its basic thinking, and needs many other thought-elements in its disposal. If all other thought-elements fail to corroborate, such a thought can never arise.

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

No it is not. I am not ignorant of what can be drawn from the existence of a world alone: the world, nothing more. Perhaps existence itself, but surely nothing else. Certainly not a God.

It falls into the doldrums of 'not even wrong', and your conclusion is necessarily erroneous.

My conclusion follows from the fact that the facthood of a world is not enough to warrant anything but itself, looked at through the perceptual lens of a savage without any contextualizing apparatus greater than said facthood..... This does lead however to the question: could other elements account for the savage's thinking? Possibly. But do they cohesively add up to warrant/imply the thought? I do not know, but doubt due to other reasons.

I have exchanges like this for the benefit of people reading along. Not for me, and absolutely not for you.

I am sorry you hold me in such ill regard. Know that I am utterly serious with you and wish for fruitful debate, above all things.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I think you are either blind or deluded if you think this way. I do in fact provide evidence, it's just not as obviously stated as you would like, I think.

It's not stated at all.

Case in point,

How can a formful, external cause in the form of a deity be drawn from the existence of a world? How can those elements arise when all you have is a world? It is logically unsound.

I am not ignorant of what can be drawn from the existence of a world alone: the world, nothing more. Perhaps existence itself, but surely nothing else. Certainly not a God.

This is an argument from ignorance. You can't personally conceive of how a God belief could be derived from an observation of nature. That is not indicative of any fact, other than your own lack of imagination.

No it is not.

Yes, it really, really is. Actually, it's a perfect textbook example.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Oh, I have. In my lengthy response to Paradoxum on the first page. You are free to prove me wrong as long as you engage with the point-by-point analysis I laid out.

Why, precisely, would the gods be useful or helpful to risen apes? God is in many ways a lofty abstraction. When it comes to things like survival on a day to day basis, foraging for food and being constantly on the move, it seems unlikely to me that such a lofty concept as God should ever have been relevant to stone aged people (as we usually conceive of them) as it would not have fulfilled any discernible role for them. So why make it up?

The same reason why basketball players believe in "hot hands", anti-vaccers believe vaccines cause autism, etc. Because there was some unexplained phenomenon that superficially appeared to correlate with a certain event in someone's life. I mean, why else would dancing on dry days make the rain come sooner? The most logical conclusion with the information readily available is that some agent (the spirit of a human or an animal) was interacting with or controlling the natural world. Eventually, the preponderance of unexplained phenomena caused the development of a variety of mini-deities that controlled the weather, the crops, domesticated animals, pregnant women, and Things that Stick in Drawers.

Also, I don't believe that there is any solid evidence that organised religion started before the development of static human communities and societies.

1. Why should stone aged people have even pondered where the world came from? It is, here and now, a brutal and challenging place, why speculate about it more than that? This would never have made any sense to me, that a God "made" the world - were I foraging human, that is. This argument or line of thought would only make sense as a relatively recent phenomenon - such as an Uncaused Cause argument, as they formulated in the Middle Ages. Otherwise, I am struggling for my next meal, and the concept of God creating the world (which requires a complex notion of causality lest you are willing to subscribe to the notion of creation ex nihilo - also a relatively advanced concept) is a non-starter. Also, the idea that the world "came to be" is less intuitive than that it always was. Unless you were inculcated from an early age that it indeed was created.

See above. By the same logic, you could ask why anyone would ever develop mathematics and drama in such an inimical environment? The answer is that they wouldn't, and they didn't. Organised theories of origins and religions probably only came after the development of permanent abodes and stability in the human lifestyle.

2. Why should I, again, as a stone aged person, ponder where life "came from"? It makes more sense to think that life always was, and that it consists of mating, sleeping, eating and defending. So again, a non-starter.

3. This is somewhat better, but the problem is: there is no evidence for this - that stone aged people would, on the basis of a "deeper meaning" have made up, by a complex rationale of sorts, that a God had something to do with it for which they had not seen any direct evidence (such as meeting up with God, say). They might have used made up concepts such as "spirits" to illustrate elements of their own psyche. But we have that, and it's called "art." Why should art therapy have ever risen beyond a form of catharsis for cave-dwellers doing finger painting? How is that evidence of all the "extravagant" claims made by primitive people that Gods, not only exist, but came to the earth and revealed themselves in a myriad of ways? No, this is not adequate.

See above.

4. At one point did the nature spirits, which seem so fickle and chaotic, deliver the divine law then? This is a relatively recent phenomenon as well which requires a fairly complex set of ideas to get off the ground. I don't think primitives would have been capable of it: that God is a supremely Wise and Good Judge of all. And yet, oddly, it seems to be in existence (from my perspective at least) before the Abrahamic era.

Well, in the case of Classical deities, they didn't, really. As you point out, they were fickle and chaotic, and it was only in the relative safety of developed human habitats that any kind of 'law' was observed; and in these cases, the earliest codices of law were, as far as I know, secular in origin and more developed by one person, or a small number of people drawing on a variety of human influences, rather than being "religiously inspired" (for example Hammurabi & Draco). The ideas that the strong protect the weak and that murder is wrong aren't exclusive to religious law - in fact, I would think it far more likely that religious codices were inspired by secular law more than the other way round.

5. Even such experiences as these need a direct referent for otherwise primitives would not be [] enough to mistake "good feelings" for a Deity. They would have had to hallucinate that deity outright, which in groups is unlikely (a lone lunatic would have been outcast). Otherwise, it would have been just a "good feeling" on a par with a drug fix.

I'm not sure why you would believe that religions just "pop up" in the form that we recognise them. Just like the things people see during sleep paralysis and lucid dreaming experiences are hugely dependent on societal context, so to would hallucinogenic experiences. I don't find it at all unlikely that the collective hallucinations of thousands of people over hundreds of years would produce some pretty coherent stuff, especially given the tendency of people to talk about their experiences.

6. Again, not obvious for the reasons aforementioned. Primitives do not have so advanced an idea of teleology.

Why not? It's not like we're much better.

7. Beauty simply is. Why not stop there? Surely a primitive would.

I agree, and I don't think this is a compelling example. A better one would be the traditional argument of irreducible complexity; in contemporary science it is no longer compelling, but to a prescientific individual it certainly must be.

8. Why think about death as opposed to try and avoid it? Death is nothing, death is nothingness. It is common, so enjoy things now. And even if primitives would have been so grief-stricken at the death of their relatives that they imagined a hereafter, God would not have been the resultant theoretical construct. At least, there would be no evidence for this.

See above.

9. See #4. In any case, this does not require a concept of God(s). Karma is good enough. A lightning strike or a bad trip.

Who regulates karma?

10. Again, looking too far ahead. The mind just "is" for primitives.

Where does the soul come from?

11. Again, the "isness" of the universe. Primitives have nothing to compare coincidences to. The world is a topsy-turvy place, so why should God explain anything? If good happens, good happened and that is what matters!

I don't really understand this one.

Except, interestingly, God is largely irrelevant to answering all the 11 questions that you gave me. At least, for primitive savages. So, where did these Gods really come from?

Well, no. The questions demonstrate that if deities were invented, then they could have been used for various purposes. This is not to say that these were the purposes for which the deities were originally created (genetic fallacy), or that the existence of these purposes entails the invention of gods (affirming the consequent). But it means that there are a set of functions that a pantheon of deities could help a prescientific person to explain.

Not typically. But here we are only dealing with two options: either Gods exist or they don't. Thus, per the law of excluded middle, if one option is rendered obsolete, the other one has to be right. I could be wrong of course, but you need to actually argue with me, not just shout down my case into oblivion.

You misunderstand. You assume that you have made atheism (used for conciseness) less plausible than theism. That is not necessarily the case.

 

[madaz]

What say you people about the origin of the gods? Are they only myths? If so, how are they only myths? What is your evidence? If that evidence is lacking, internally inconsistent, or otherwise implausible, how willing are you to accept that the gods are in fact real?

Personally, I have no doubt that the gods exist. I believe there is evidence for their existence but what is more the evidence that they are merely myths is so lacking in my view (so lacking that even a child can see the absurdity in taking such explanations seriously) that that itself constitutes powerful grounds for accepting the gods' existence as real.

What say you?

So let me get this straight, is this the logic of your argument?


Premise 1. Gods exist.
Premise 2. The lack of evidence that gods are myth is in itself the evidence.
Conclusion-So therefore gods exist.