Why anyones argument for god(s) is fallacious, especially as a causal agent:Imagine Michael and Jessica are at Jimmys house sitting at the kitchen table. Jessica steps outside to take a phone call. When she returns her drink is spilled. Jessica asks, How did my drink get knocked over? Michael replies, It was a SnickerDoodle.J: Whats a SnickerDoodle?M: It looks a little like an elephant but it is small, pink, and invisible.J: Is it invisible or pink? It cant be both.M: Well, it is. You cant understand what the SnickerDoodle looks like.J: Zip it. SnickerDoodles are not real. How did my drink get knocked over?M: Well, it was Jimmys cat, but it was because he was chasing the SnickerDoodle, so the SnickerDoodle made him do it.J: Stop with the SnickerDoodle, you weirdo.M: Just kidding, it was Jimmys cat, I dont know why.We have no reason to believe that SnickerDoodles are real. Without SnickerDoodles being established as possible causes to drinks being knocked down, then there is no point to discussing them as the cause of Jessicas drink being knocked over. In similar fashion, we have to establish that cats are a possible reason that drinks get knocked down. Okay, we have established that cats are real and capable of doing so. It is now a viable option, but in order for Michaels story have any plausibility, we not only have to establish that a cat did it, we have to establish that it was Jimmys cat, or that Jimmy even has a cat.Believers cannot get to step one, establishing that any god is even a viable option on the list of possibilities. Then even if gods were proven to be real, you still have to prove that it was your particular god, or that your particular god exists. To argue that your god is real, is like Michael arguing that Jimmys SnickerDoodle knocked over Jessicas drink. Can grown-adults take that argument seriously? Really?
