1. You assume every religion is just as probable.

2. You assume no special revelation.

Well, there arer probably more. Those are the ones I thought off the top of my head.

the more detailed the more likely youre wrong

How?

specifics of unknowables

You can the assumption of no special revelation. If you entertain special revelation, the probability difference WILL disappear.

its a memetic trick

fake evidence

>_>

'he must be right his story has such detail it cant have been made up'

😍 ✋🏻

@Tyburn got more boargang memes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR51fkKT14Q

Haha, ok, I think this is simple enough for you to understand. Perhaps, you have not thought of this yet.

But if God were real and was capable of revealing his self, there is literally no difference of probability in details.

3. Your third assumption is that religions are strictly men guessing. Going back to point 2., you assume there is not an interaction between God and man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L168fisFvyM

Saved

@Wesker fixed

<:smugooze:398100987866251265>

😏

hektor so you have no proof either, thanks for making my point in other words

omnipotent omnipresence is indistinguishable from randomness

Your argument was that all religions are unlikely correct. I point why that argument is invalid.

So how did I prove your point?

I just think your argument is bogus. I am looking for a debate rn. Bored out of my mind.

it goes for all religions that they are very unlikely to be true

hektor

your syllogism is self referentially incoherent

: 0

this is basic logic

Tell me why?

u srs?

your premises refute your conclusion

Tell me why.

it isn't valid

because neither can prove their starting point: god

your premises refute your conclusion because it does not follow

it's a non sequitur

I was not proving God.