Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[SalixIncendium]

huh.
When i read it I read 'various'.
Not until you asked did I realize I read it wrong.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager big bucks that I'm going to hear about the One True God™ in the near future.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is a variable God?

Two ways to view this. First the God of the Pentateuch, the New Testament and the Quran are supposed to be the same God, but from the human perspective this God or Pentateuch Gods is highly variable. Second, If you consider the more universal perspective God or Gods becomes a real cameleon.

 

[shunyadragon]

huh.
When i read it I read 'various'.
Not until you asked did I realize I read it wrong.

No, I stated variable, though yes from the human perspective the contradictory various Gdos is also a problem of which one is the true God.

See post #462

 

[Trailblazer]

And the only way to do that is by analyzing the content or claims made. Which was what I tried to demonstrate with the A vs B example. You need some sort of content about these to decide which is most likely to be whatever. And then apply the use of logic and reasoning to decide.

I agree with that.

I think this demonstrates it well. Because this reasoning doesn't work. God/Jesus themselves contradict science, which would make the Bahai religion invalid by your own standards.

It is not God or Jesus that contradict science, it is the Bible that does that. Baha'is do not believe that everything in the Bible literally happened, we believe much of it is allegorical, and some of us believe it is simply fictitious, such as the stories about Jesus rising from the dead.

Claims made by religions that contradict science don't make them less of a religion. It is a key foundation in all religions as they often deal with supernatural explanations that contradict science. The most accurate you could say in my opinion is simply that the religion in question got that wrong or at least hasn't demonstrated that it is true.

When I say "contradict science" I mean that they make claims that are not physically possible, like Jesus coming back to life after three days in a tomb or Jesus defying gravity by floating up into the sky.

I do not think that supernatural things contradict science, they are simply outside the purview of science. For example, the existence eof God is outside the purview of science and that is why science cannot prove that God exists.

But this is going to end in a circular fallacy because your starting point is that God is real, which is required for you to even conclude that a given religion is true or not. Obviously, as a Bahai you reach the conclusion that it is true, because of Baha'u'llah, claiming to have communicated with God. And since he claims that and you believe it to be true, it loops back to the starting point. So you have a perfect circle. If you didn't do this you wouldn't be a Bahai. If you didn't believe that he got it from God, why would you then be a Bahai?

No, my 'starting point' is not that God is real. All I was saying is that, hypothetically speaking, I believe a religion is valid (meaning true) only if that religion came from God. I did not say how we can know that although I believe we can know that by looking at the religion and seeing if it was revealed through a Messenger of God.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Regarding circular arguments, I save a lot of my posts into Word documents, and I saved this post that I wrote to you over two years ago. Please see the bottom of the post that refers to circular arguments.

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

Yeah, yeah, this "clear mirror" might work with Jesus, but like I've said many times... the Baha'i definition of a manifestation doesn't fit Adam, Noah, Abraham and even Moses. They were men and never claimed to be more than men. All of them are part of the Jewish story. As I told you before...

www.religiousforums.com

I wouldn't call Scientology a religion because it is well-known that it is made up by a human. No different than claiming that Lord of the Rings is a religion.

I am glad you agree with me on that.

It's an interesting topic, I'm not sure what is required for something to be called a religion compared to a cult, except the number of members.

1. It requires a supernatural force, there are religions with spirits etc. where im not sure if they have gods like we see them or if they are more bound to nature. Yet they are still religions I would say.
2. It has to have been considered revealed, I agree with that.
3. No I don't agree with that, remember Judaism, Islam etc. were shared mouth-to-mouth long before being written down which was done much later. Hardly anyone could read/write back then and making scriptures was expensive and took a long time to do.
4. That is true, again what makes the difference between a cult and a religion, is primarily the size. But again I don't know how these are differentiated.

Well no, there don't necessarily have to be scriptures for a religion to be a religion. There is a time, before a religion becomes established when the teachings are shared mouth-to-mouth.

I do not think that size is the primary difference between a cult and a religion. All religious start small and grow over time. Some people call the Baha'i Faith a cult just because it is small, but I don't know of any cults that have 7 million members.

Religions therefore seek a mass following. Cults, however, rely on secret or special knowledge which is revealed only to initiates by the cult's founder or his/her chosen representatives.

When does a cult become a religion? | Notes and Queries​

What is considered a cult?

A cult is an organized group whose purpose is to dominate cult members through psychological manipulation and pressure strategies. 1 Cults are usually headed by a powerful leader who isolates members from the rest of society. Some individuals who join cults remain lifelong members.

What Is a Cult? 10 Warning Signs - Verywell Mind​

 

[F1fan]

The reason that so many religions exist is because God has revealed many different religions through Messengers who came in different ages.

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]​

​

This teaching is an interaction of simpler teachings and their implications. The basic concept relates closely to Bahá'í views on God's essential unity, and the nature of prophets, termed Manifestations of God. It also ties into Bahá'í views of the purpose and nature of religion, laws, belief, culture and history. Hence revelation is seen as both progressive and continuous, and therefore never ceases.[3]​

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i​

The reasons that those religions have not united into one religion is because humans want to believe in an established framework that others believe in already.

None of this is factual. None of this is valuable to an argument. What you cite here is what is what reason challenges.

 

[Trailblazer]

None of this is factual. None of this is valuable to an argument. What you cite here is what is what reason challenges.

Religious beliefs are not factual because they can never be proven to be true, for obvious logical reasons.
If you are only interested in facts, I suggest you stick with science.

 

[Nimos]

It is not God or Jesus that contradict science, it is the Bible that does that. Baha'is do not believe that everything in the Bible literally happened, we believe much of it is allegorical, and some of us believe it is simply fictitious, such as the stories about Jesus rising from the dead.

Yes but we get the information for God and Jesus from the Bible, it is the original source. Whether someone agrees with it is another discussion. So Jesus and God in the Bible contradict science, which is not really a surprise given they are supernatural.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Regarding circular arguments, I save a lot of my posts into Word documents, and I saved this post that I wrote to you over two years ago. Please see the bottom of the post that refers to circular arguments.

Yes, and I don't think you read my reply

Recap:
I have no clue who this guy is, but it is simply not true what he is saying that this is a sound argument.

Once he rephrases his statement, it is no longer a claim, but rather an open question or a statement with assumptions thrown into it, which completely change things.

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

Until you answer the IF's. The statement is pointless.

We don't know if the bible is true, and we don't know if God exists. But surely if we assume that both or one of these is true, the statement makes sense. But that assumption is invalid, so who cares? which is why it is pointless unless it is demonstrated.

Besides that, you can throw any religious text into that statement.

If the old Norse texts are true, Thor and Odin exist, and, if Thor and Odin exist the old Norse texts are true.

Again, I have no clue who this guy is, but it's simply not true what he is saying.

I do not think that size is the primary difference between a cult and a religion. All religious start small and grow over time. Some people call the Baha'i Faith a cult just because it is small, but I don't know of any cults that have 7 million members.

Agree, I don't know what the difference is between a cult and a religion. If there are 100 members people call it a cult, but if there are millions it is a religion. And even that is not accurate, because you have tribes around the world with their own religions which are not referred to as cults.

Religions therefore seek a mass following. Cults, however, rely on secret or special knowledge which is revealed only to initiates by the cult's founder or his/her chosen representatives.

Maybe, but isn't that the same with religion? Moses was special, Jesus was special etc. Even in Bahai, there are "special" people who get things revealed by God. Im not saying you are wrong, but it seems like a very vague definition, that I think could easily be ripped apart.

A cult is an organized group whose purpose is to dominate cult members through psychological manipulation and pressure strategies.

But again is religion different? Hell is also used to threaten members? The idea of knowing God's word is also used to manipulate people. Terrorists blowing themselves up, people killing abortion doctors, JW refusing to receive blood, can't do military service or vote. The Catholic church indirectly caused the killing of people by not allowing protection etc. All these things are dominant members telling others what or how to behave according to what they believe to be correct and if they don't they are bad believers, will get punished by God, etc.

So I don't think that is a valid argument, it is simply considered acceptable in a religion whereas it is not if it occurs in a cult.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes but we get the information for God and Jesus from the Bible, it is the original source. Whether someone agrees with it is another discussion. So Jesus and God in the Bible contradict science, which is not really a surprise given they are supernatural.

Yes, the Bible is the original source, and the only real source, but that doesn't mean it accurately represents what Jesus said or did.
The Bible contradicts science but I don't believe that anything that Jesus said or did contradicts science.

On the other had, if you want to say that God and anything supernatural contradicts science then most religions contradict science.
My argument is that God and the supernatural don't contradict science, they are only outside of the purview of science.

Yes, and I don't think you read my reply

I did read it back in 2021, but I did not reread it today.

Recap:
I have no clue who this guy is, but it is simply not true what he is saying that this is a sound argument.

As I recall, the link to his website was no longer available when I posted tat to you but it was when I first read it.

Once he rephrases his statement, it is no longer a claim, but rather an open question or a statement with assumptions thrown into it, which completely change things.

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

Until you answer the IF's. The statement is pointless.

We don't know if the bible is true, and we don't know if God exists. But surely if we assume that both or one of these is true, the statement makes sense. But that assumption is invalid, so who cares? which is why it is pointless unless it is demonstrated.

I only noticed later that his statement was not correct.

He said: If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

That statement was incorrect.

If the bible is true God exists, but if God exists the bible is not necessarily true.

You are correct in saying that until you answer the IF's the statement is pointless. Rather, it is all hypothetical.
But the point I was making is that circular arguments are not necessarily invalid because: If the bible is true God exists.

What he is saying is correct, but the problem is that you can never prove the premise the bible is true so you cannot assert the conclusion that God exists.

Besides that, you can throw any religious text into that statement.

If the old Norse texts are true, Thor and Odin exist, and, if Thor and Odin exist the old Norse texts are true.

That is correct. You can throw any religious text into that statement.

If the Baha'i texts are true, Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, and, if Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God the Baha'i texts are true.

Again, I have no clue who this guy is, but it's simply not true what he is saying.

What he is saying is true, but the salient problem is that you can never prove the premise so you cannot assert the conclusion.

Agree, I don't know what the difference is between a cult and a religion. If there are 100 members people call it a cult, but if there are millions it is a religion. And even that is not accurate, because you have tribes around the world with their own religions which are not referred to as cults.

Below are the two main features the differentiate a cult from a religion:

1. Cults rely on secret or special knowledge which is revealed only to initiates by the cult's founder or his/her chosen representatives.
2. A cult is an organized group whose purpose is to dominate cult members through psychological manipulation and pressure strategies.

Maybe, but isn't that the same with religion? Moses was special, Jesus was special etc. Even in Bahai, there are "special" people who get things revealed by God. Im not saying you are wrong, but it seems like a very vague definition, that I think could easily be ripped apart.

Yes, Moses, Jesus, and Baha'u'llah were "special" people who got things revealed by God, but they did not rely on secret or special knowledge which is revealed only to initiates by the cult's founder or his/her chosen representatives. The Bible and the Writings of Baha'u'llah are hardly a secret!

But again is religion different? Hell is also used to threaten members? The idea of knowing God's word is also used to manipulate people. Terrorists blowing themselves up, people killing abortion doctors, JW refusing to receive blood, can't do military service or vote. The Catholic church indirectly caused the killing of people by not allowing protection etc. All these things are dominant members telling others what or how to behave according to what they believe to be correct and if they don't they are bad believers, will get punished by God, etc.

Granted, 'some' Christian churches and sects of Islam might dominate members through psychological manipulation and pressure strategies, but that is not all they do, and that is not the purpose of those religions or the main thing they do, as is the case for a cult.

So I don't think that is a valid argument, it is simply considered acceptable in a religion whereas it is not if it occurs in a cult.

I do not think these behaviors are acceptable for a religion and that is one reason I am a Baha'i.

 

[MikeF]

Because it is not relevant what the attributes are. Meaning whether it is beyond all that exists or simply a big foot running around in a forest. It is about making claims and not providing proof for them.

I don't think "beyond reality" is, we have no clue what is beyond our Universe if anything, or even how it got into existence. I think one could make a valid argument that our Universe is our reality, what was going on before or "outside" it, is not. There could be things going on that control our reality, yet we will never know given we can't look past our creation, at best we can reach the Big Bang assuming that is correct, and even that is impossible due to physical cosmic whatever preventing it (You will have to look it up for a better explanation as I can't remember the details)

I think we are beginning to talk past each other here a little bit. Part of the problem is related to the word 'reality' and to our being clear as to which use of the several ways it can be used we are referencing. For example, 'reality' can be used to reference an individuals subjective perspective and in that sense there is a unique reality for every individual.

In my use here, I would define reality as all that is or all that exists, including that which is beyond our perception. So if that is one Universe or an infinite number of Universes, regardless of their interaction, etc. the term reality would encompass all of it in my use of the term. You suggest that "There could be things going on that control our reality, yet we will never know given we can't look past our creation,...", and for my definition, such things would be encompassed under my use of the term reality.

Yet, if I should accept your claim and what you say is true, then what is beyond our Universe? how did it come into existence? What is the explanation? At that point, everything is guesswork and that is where God(s) are placed.

Exactly! If it is beyond our perception then we can say absolutely nothing about it. To do so is to simply create a fiction. The answer to all those questions is “We do not know and can not answer them at this time.”

Agree. We have to follow the physical laws because we exist in the Universe. But that doesn't mean that everything has to adhere to those laws if they exist outside or in a parallel universe or whatever.

There is no “outside or in a parallel universe or whatever.” There is only what we are able to perceive and deduce from that perception, and the unknown.

Completely agree, but we don't do that by jumping to unjustified conclusions. That is why the burden of proof is so important. It allows everyone to make theories and claims, yet for everyone else to not take them seriously without providing proof.

And I certainly agree that reasoned and rational skepticism isn’t achieved by jumping to unjustified conclusions.

But there is absolutely nothing gained by shooting down someone's idea or claim due to ignorance, let them provide the proof if they can, and then have a go at that and see it if holds water.

Due to whose ignorance, that of the claimant or the one challenging the claim? I agree that a well constructed hypothesis should not be dismissed out of hand, but after analysis, if it does not hold water, as you say, shouldn’t that be pointed out?

Isn't that what you say?

But rather my point is simply that the same rules apply to your claims as to those of a religious nature. There is no difference between claiming God exists vs that he doesn't when it comes to the burden of proof. Both are extraordinary claims about knowing about the very existence of our Universe.

God is a fictional character materially no different from Gandalf from Lord of the Rings, or the great white whale in Moby Dick, or H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu. The only difference between the character God and the others is that generation after generation are indoctrinated to treat the fictional character as real. This has also been done with other fictional characters throughout history, such as Viracocha, Brahma, Sidaba Mapu, Ptah, El, Cōātlīcue, Hayyi Rabbi, Marduk, Waheguru, Ba’al, Ra, Odin, Rod, and many many more.

Are you saying that what I describe here is an extraordinary claim, that of God being a well documented fictional character?

It seems like we are in general agreement on the details of our collective objective understanding of the Cosmos or Universe, and that whatever may lie outside of our current objective understanding would be unknown and currently unknowable. In this regard, it seems to me that any claim regarding the unknown and unknowable would be extraordinary, and so I make no claims about the unknown. What I do assert is that any claim regarding the unknown would necessarily be a fictional claim. Absent any information at all, might someone make an exact guess as to some feature or thing hidden from us in the unknown? I would say astronomically low, and as such, can be easily dismissed out of hand, for the pool of wrong guesses is infinite. I would also not recommend treating such low probability guesses as fact as is the case with believed myth.

 

[MikeF]

Look at the definitions of contradict. God does not 'contradict' what is known in reality just because God is not 'known to exist' in the physical reality.
Reality is what exists.

Reality:

• the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
• the state or quality of having existence or substance.

reality means - Google Search

I agree with your definition of reality. What I disagree with is what can and can't be said about the unknown. Doesn't it stand to reason that if it is unknown then nothing can be said about it? To make any declaration about some feature or thing and say that it resides in the unknown would be de facto creating a fiction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is different because it impossible to procure forensic evidence for God because God is not a physical entity, and it is impossible to have eyewitness testimony for God, since God can never be seen.

The example has no forensic or eyewitness evidence either. It just has a person making claims. Which is what you have for your god also.
You think it's enough to accept your god exists, but clearly you don't think it's enough to accept a guilty charge in a murder trial.

I just explained that above. In short, because God is not a human being, the evidence for God's existence cannot be the same as the evidence used to prosecute a human being in a court of law.

So you can't have empirical evidence and you can't have "testimony".
One has to wonder what then is left that would be in any way convincing.

Baha'u'llah made claims in His Writings. Otherwise there would be NO WAY for anyone to know who He was claiming to be.

However, the 'claims' in His Writings ARE NOT the evidence that support His claims.

The evidence is as follows:

1. His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities)

2. His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)

3. His Writings are additional evidence because they show who He was as a person, what He taught about God and other things, and what accomplished on His mission.

How is any of these things evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By looking at the religion and seeing if it is superstitious.

But you defined "superstition" as "not from god".
And you defined "religion" as "from god".

This is about as circular as it gets.

What are the criteria to differentiate between the two?

 

[PureX]

I agree with your definition of reality. What I disagree with is what can and can't be said about the unknown. Doesn't it stand to reason that if it is unknown then nothing can be said about it? To make any declaration about some feature or thing and say that it resides in the unknown would be de facto creating a fiction.

There is one thing we can know about the unknown ... that it is an actual state of being. We can know that we don't know without knowing what we don't know. And that is the dilemma that drives we humans to invent god concepts and images and religious methodologies to enable is to act on them. We invent them to represent that known-unknown. The mystery is both real and is self-evident. The representations are just our preferred representations. Our means of trying out possible resolutions. Arguing about the representations is mostly a waste of time and achieves nothing in terms of demystifying the source. Which is why atheism is so impotent except for it's anti-religiosity.

 

[Nimos]

Yes, the Bible is the original source, and the only real source, but that doesn't mean it accurately represents what Jesus said or did.
The Bible contradicts science but I don't believe that anything that Jesus said or did contradicts science.

On the other had, if you want to say that God and anything supernatural contradicts science then most religions contradict science.
My argument is that God and the supernatural don't contradict science, they are only outside of the purview of science.

They do in many cases contradict science, so it shouldn't be a surprise. Jesus walking on water and you mentioned examples yourself. Thor creates lightning, giants, Zeus, Poseidon etc.

All these contradict science.

What he is saying is true, but the salient problem is that you can never prove the premise so you cannot assert the conclusion.

That is what makes it wrong, I don't know why you would say it is true and then instantly clarify why it isn't

Yes, Moses, Jesus, and Baha'u'llah were "special" people who got things revealed by God, but they did not rely on secret or special knowledge which is revealed only to initiates by the cult's founder or his/her chosen representatives. The Bible and the Writings of Baha'u'llah are hardly a secret!

No, but the knowledge given to them by God is used to lead others. Moses was the leader of the Jewish people until they reached Israel and the right-hand man of God so to speak.

Obviously, the Bible is mostly written in the form of stories and not as a set of rules or interpretations, you have the law, but even that is introduced through a story. Whereas things today rely on interpreting these stories and using them to tell others how to behave.

If we imagine being amongst the Jews at that time that Moses etc. would have told them how to behave according to what God told him we know that the Jews constantly pisses off God and he kills them in quite big numbers as a result and then Moses have to step in and calm him down or reason with him. So it is kind of a back-and-forth between God and Moses getting pissed at the Jews and then having to solve the issues.

Granted, 'some' Christian churches and sects of Islam might dominate members through psychological manipulation and pressure strategies, but that is not all they do, and that is not the purpose of those religions or the main thing they do, as is the case for a cult.

I just used these examples as they are pretty clear examples. But there are lots of rules in all religions of what you should and shouldn't do, a majority of these are minor things, but I think this counts as being manipulated into behaving a certain way, you have to remember that in all cases those interpreting the rules are merely humans having no authority to do it, except that the believers in the religion seek them for guidance, rather than simply reading the text themselves and do as they say.

And as we know a lot of modern religious leaders don't follow the rules, they bend and twist them to fit with the modern world. If you read the Bible the majority of the rules are extremely straightforward forward and there isn't really that many compared to the insane amount of rules we have today, just think about selling a house, traffic laws, tax laws etc. The old biblical laws are nothing compared to that, in terms of scale.

I do not think these behaviors are acceptable for a religion and that is one reason I am a Baha'i.

I agree. But that is the "power" of organized religion, they can get away with a lot more things than cults can. Also because there is a lot of believers so they have political power, big enough to overthrow or keep a government in power as we see all over the world.

 

[Nimos]

I think we are beginning to talk past each other here a little bit. Part of the problem is related to the word 'reality' and to our being clear as to which use of the several ways it can be used we are referencing. For example, 'reality' can be used to reference an individuals subjective perspective and in that sense there is a unique reality for every individual.

In my use here, I would define reality as all that is or all that exists, including that which is beyond our perception. So if that is one Universe or an infinite number of Universes, regardless of their interaction, etc. the term reality would encompass all of it in my use of the term. You suggest that "There could be things going on that control our reality, yet we will never know given we can't look past our creation,...", and for my definition, such things would be encompassed under my use of the term reality.

I did in fact understand your definition of reality as you have explained it here.

But I think that is too loose of a definition. Because we didn't exist, including time so there was nothing before the Universe was created. So extending our reality beyond that seems somewhat incorrect to me. Kind of like saying that your reality includes stuff before you were born, if that makes sense?

Sure, you can say that people have individual realities, but I think one has to be very careful here and that it probably isn't the same as the reality we are talking about.

To me, reality is what we can agree on exists. Take an apple, doesn't matter what each of us calls it or how we describe it, our interpretation of taste or color. We can agree that it exists and that is real. An individual can't conclude that an apple doesn't exist in their reality, that would simply be mental.

So an example of individual reality could be a person starving in a poor country that doesn't share the reality of life with let's say Elon Musk. They deal with completely different things in their everyday life, yet they can both agree that an apple is real.

Exactly! If it is beyond our perception then we can say absolutely nothing about it. To do so is to simply create a fiction. The answer to all those questions is “We do not know and can not answer them at this time.”

That is a fallacy or at least a contradiction.

You can't say that we don't know and then at the same time exclude all supernatural explanations. Because that means that you at least know that those are impossible without providing any proof of how you reached that conclusion, which contradicts what you started by saying.

If you don't know, then you don't know. Then you can't start concluding things.

That is the issue I was trying to explain.

There is no “outside or in a parallel universe or whatever.” There is only what we are able to perceive and deduce from that perception, and the unknown.

Again how do you know this? If there are more Universes we could measure this as interference in our own if they pass through each other, at least in theory.

And I certainly agree that reasoned and rational skepticism isn’t achieved by jumping to unjustified conclusions.

Yet, that is what you are doing?

You are perfectly entitled to say that you don't believe parallel universes or the supernatural exists, but concluding that they don't is jumping to unjustified conclusions.

Due to whose ignorance, that of the claimant or the one challenging the claim? I agree that a well constructed hypothesis should not be dismissed out of hand, but after analysis, if it does not hold water, as you say, shouldn’t that be pointed out?

The ignorance of the person shooting down someone's claim for which they have no knowledge of. I'm not talking about let's say flat earthers, given there are tons of evidence that this is simply not true, so we already have enough to shoot down such nonsense. But for instance, someone presenting an alternative theory to the Big Bang, dark matter, or even supernatural things like gods etc. So things that are in the unknown.

God is a fictional character materially no different from Gandalf from Lord of the Rings, or the great white whale in Moby Dick, or H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu. The only difference between the character God and the others is that generation after generation are indoctrinated to treat the fictional character as real. This has also been done with other fictional characters throughout history, such as Viracocha, Brahma, Sidaba Mapu, Ptah, El, Cōātlīcue, Hayyi Rabbi, Marduk, Waheguru, Ba’al, Ra, Odin, Rod, and many many more.

I completely agree, I see no evidence that these are true. But it is not up to me to conclude that those believing in God are wrong. It is up to them to present evidence of why I should take their claims seriously.

Are you saying that what I describe here is an extraordinary claim, that of God being a well documented fictional character?

Yes, not especially because of God, but because we can't verify that things in these religious texts couldn't have occurred, whereas we can easily prove that Gandalf is from Lord of the Rings and Tolkien never claimed that these were anything other than fictional characters. But jumping to the conclusion that God isn't real again contradicts the statement that we don't know when God is said to have created the Universe and this is meant seriously, it is an actual claim.

No different than if you claimed that a unicorn created the Universe, it might be considered silly, but a claim nonetheless that you would have to provide evidence for if you wanted anyone to take you seriously.

It seems like we are in general agreement on the details of our collective objective understanding of the Cosmos or Universe, and that whatever may lie outside of our current objective understanding would be unknown and currently unknowable.

Overall I don't think we disagree, it's minor things about what we think is reasonable to conclude and what isn't.

To me, the same rules applying to religious claims apply to all claims.

In this regard, it seems to me that any claim regarding the unknown and unknowable would be extraordinary, and so I make no claims about the unknown.

No, because you can make a claim based on well-known facts, even though your claim might be unknowable. For instance black holes, quantum theory, the big bang. All pretty crazy ideas in terms of magnitude or what to say, yet I don't think they were considered extraordinary claims, because something didn't add up when they were first suggested, much like dark matter and energy are now.

Absent any information at all, might someone make an exact guess as to some feature or thing hidden from us in the unknown?

Yes, an example of that could be the multiverse theory, which could explain the fine-tuning issue. Obviously, it runs into a lot of other issues nonetheless not a completely bogus idea.

I would say astronomically low, and as such, can be easily dismissed out of hand, for the pool of wrong guesses is infinite. I would also not recommend treating such low probability guesses as fact as is the case with believed myth.

They are not treated as facts, they are treated as theories, just as we could say God is, it is merely a theory that hasn't been proven. And also why they are not taken seriously in regards to how we do science.

 

[joelr]

With all due respect, I don't recall you ever correctly citing a fallacy in another poster's words. You haven't with me, and you never will. I have given a straw man response to a comment I misread, but that's not a logical error.

Every post from TB I get hit with with a fallacy accusation and a pasted definition. Not one time was it actually the fallacy. It's all there .
Yet I do get hit with constant special pleading, goalpost moves, and others as well.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Every post from TB I get hit with with a fallacy accusation and a pasted definition. Not one time was it actually the fallacy. It's all there .
Yet I do get hit with constant special pleading, goalpost moves, and others as well.

The most overused one, in my experience at least, is accusations of "ad hominem". People seem to genuinely believe that the fallacy just means "any statement would could be considered to reflect a negative opinion of me".

 

[joelr]

The most overused one, in my experience at least, is accusations of "ad hominem". People seem to genuinely believe that the fallacy just means "any statement would could be considered to reflect a negative opinion of me".

Yes, and actual ad-hom as well. Or, ad-hom the scholar who's point I'm using.

 

[Muffled]

Nope, no footprints. Those are only empty claims. Footprints are physical objects. You have a book. Much of it is mythical. Some of it is historical, but there are clear errors in parts of it when it comes to its "history".

Have you ever thought of trying to find at least a little reliable evidence for your beliefs?

I believe a book is physical and so are the words in it. Belief that it is mythical is assumption not evidence.

 

[Muffled]

But why don't you believe in leprechauns and fairies?

I believe it is due to the fact that those are mentioned in folklore and we don't know if that is fact or fiction. Can't say I have ever had a testimony of someone having experience with them either whether imagined or real.