Fuh... going through the rebuttal...
This point is granted. Check this out. If you have a stock broker that is giving you bad picks in stock (i dont know anything about stocks, but lets use this example), do you stop investing money in stock as a whole? No, you find another stock broker and perhaps you will have better luck with that one. With the restaurant example, you may stop eating the food at THAT particular resteraunt, but do you stop eating food at any other restaurant on account of the previous one?? No, you find another restaurant that serves better food. So my point is, Zeus may not be the right God for you, Zeus may not exist at all, but does that mean that the Christian God doesn't exist? Does that mean that Allah doesn't exist? Well, obviously not.
Completely missing the point.
He is not saying that the stock broker is some specific supernatural explanation in this example. The broker is "IMPs in general over the history of mankind". So if you want to actually mimic/parody his example, it would be that "99.99% of restaurants ever gone to were terrible, but the next restaurant might not be terrible, so let's go!".
Extending your poorly-mimicked analogy to the subject of IMPs, it would be saying: "So my point is, mental disorders weren't caused by demons and diseases weren't caused by demons, but maybe tidal waves have demons pushing them!".
Going on to the next part...
Adding a bit to it that I found relevant...
Once again, just because the people of the religion were wrong about how they speculated a natural phenomena to occur, doesn't logically include that their god doesn't exist. All you can show to prove that their god didn't do a specific act as they claimed that he did. That says NOTHING about whether their god exist at all.
It doesn't say that their god does NOT exist. It does show, however, that it is much more ridiculous to choose that god, and that most people would take that as evidence enough not to pick that deity for themselves. That is why most people here are agnostic atheists - despite a claim not being true, it can't disprove the deity completely. However, it makes it so much more implausible that any sensible person would not choose it.
Never am I claiming that i know more cosmology than the pro's. What I am claiming is, all you have to do is research and study the issues to KNOW that there are objections to the models, just like you can look up the kalam argument and find that there are objections to it. The models in which you proposed (in fact, all models) have some flaws within them. Some of the models, as i pointed out, are not even thoroughly equated yet. As it currently stands, all of the models are just POSSIBILE scenarios. And just because they are possible, that doesn't make them PLAUSIBLE (appearing likely to be true). Scientist don't win Nobel Prizes for coming up with just "possible" scenarios (because almost anything is possible). They win awards based on what is PLAUSIBLE. And none of the models are plausible as of yet, which is my point.
Actually, a possible naturalistic scenario is all is needed to break the false dichotomy. Then, until it is shown to be highly unlikely (as it is taken seriously by many experts in the field, we know that it is valid, unless, of course, you show us why they are invalid), we should choose a naturalistic possibility.
Actually, let me say it this way: even knowing that there is no naturalistic explanation as of yet, it would be much safer to bet on the fact that there will be one. This would not work out in the case of IMPs such as Yahweh, but can safely be assumed by any sensible person that it will in naturalistic explanations.
Now, are we discounting an IMP entirely? No, but we are saying that, given the record of IMPs and naturalistic scenarios, any sensible person would guess that there is a naturalistic explanation.
Note that, by saying "...even knowing that there is no naturalistic explanation as of yet...", I am not saying that there is no naturalistic explanation (I thought it implied I thought that, anyway).
This is silly lol. First of all, the existence of a Yeti has yet to be proven or disproven as well.
You say that a Yeti has yet to be proven or disproven with definite certainity? That is true.
But any sensible person would conclude that Yetis are nonexistent until it is proven to them and/or enough evidence that suggests the existence of a Yeti exists. This would make that person an agnostic a-Yeti-ist. It would be up to someone else to prove the Yeti to them.
A less sensible person would conclude that Yetis do not exist, and no evidence will exist in the future. This would make that person a gnostic a-Yeti-ist. It would be up to them to prove that there is no way a Yeti could possibly exist.
EDIT: I'm sorry, Admin 1. I didn't see your warning before I posted this one.