No. Because if Bob Hope didn't exist then a priori he could not have been the first president of the United States.

Besides the lightning bolt claim, what other claims are made about Zeus?

Yes. If Bob Hope didn't exist then he logically couldn't have been any kind of President in any country. If someone still had to believe that he was then it would have to be believed a priori.

The claim is still irrelevant until the existence of Bob Hope is resolved. Uunless of course someone had to believe it, lest he or she went crazy (or more crazy, whichever way to look at it)

Except for divinity, I wouldn't know. I'm terrible with Greek mythology.

Specificity, might facilitate discussion.

Some claims regarding Zeus:

1. He was not the only "Greek god."
2. He lived on Mount Olympus.
3. Sired children with human females. (Eg. Danae)
4. Was the offspring of the titans Rhea and Cronus.

In all cases, I may have personally seen the thing in question or may have merely read about it in a book (or been told about it). Either way, my path to seeking (further) evidence for it remains the same.
For example, I have never seen a brown recluse spider, but I have read about them and about the distinctive appearance of their bite. But regardless of whether my familiarity with the brown reclusive comes from personal experience or reading books about spiders, when I observe that distinctive bite mark on my arm I will take it as evidence that I have, in the recent past, been near a brown recluse spider.

Certainly.
I would suggest that if you continue looking for evidence you will likely find that the concept of a "mouse" fits more of the evidence (and fits it better) than does the concept of your little green leprechauns.
But, none-the-less, if "little green leprechaun" means "a thing that chews on cables" then finding chewed cables is evidence that a "little green leprechaun" has been in the vicinity. It is, IMO, woefully insufficient to conclude that "little green leprechauns" actually were there, but I can't deny that in-and-of-itself it supports that argument (if only just barely).

Of course.
Think about it, if the only thing with magnetic properties you had ever heard of was Mjollnir, and you observed the spoon moving toward the shoe-box, you would logically have evidence that shoe-box either contained or was Mjollnir.
Of course you might have even stronger evidence against such a hypothesis, but having stronger evidence against something doesn't mean there is no evidence for it.


Perhaps I'm confused, but it looks like you're saying that I must have evidence that the Zeus creature exists before I can go about looking for evidence that it exists.

All I need is the concept of a thing (in this case, I have labeled the concept "Zeus"). It may have come from my own past experiences, from someone else who told me about it or recorded in a book, or in a dream I had. Once I have the concept, I can go about looking for evidence that my concept has a counterpart in reality.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

Dilettante, let's start from the bottom here, both in your post and with the problems facing it.

Science is a method with which to arrive at explanations of natural phenomena as they can be observed in the natural world. Popularly speaking, the method starts with an observation and ends up in with an explanation of the observation. Let's forget everything in between for a moment and just look at the basic premises of a scientific explanation: For an observation A there exists one or more phenomena so that it becomes possible to make observation A.

Does this mean that one, more or all of the phenomena held accountable for the observation must be known? No, it doesn't. One does not need to know about mice in order to know that an electrical cable has marks on it as if something has been chewing on it. However, that was NOT your starting point.

You started by saying that mice chew on electrical cables. That statement must be based on the evidential fact that mice exist. If the existence of mice is unknown, evidentially, then your statement is nonsense.

Likewise with your mythical figure, Zeus. If your starting point was that one or more phenomena exist so that lightning bolts that hit people saying "Zeus is ugly" can be observed then you were home free as to the existence of Zeus. However, that was NOT your starting point. You started by saying that "Zeus shoots lightening bolts at people who curse his name" and that very statement necessitates the known existence of Zeus. In other words: It is NOT a way to look for evidence of Zeus' existence but a way to look for evidence of the alleged connection between cursing a specific name and an already factual existence of a character that, as evidence must have already established, is capable of shooting lightning bolts.


Let's try another approach and sum up what you said in a schematic way (I added the one about dark matter for clarity):

Known factual phenomenon: Zeus
Known factual property: Shoots lightning bolts upon people cursing the name of self
Observation: People cursing the name of Zeus hit by lightning bolts
Conclusion: People who are hit must have triggered Zeus' ability to shoot lightning bolts at them

Known factual phenomenon: Mouse
Known factual property: Chews on electrical cables
Observation: Electrical cables with chewing marks
Conclusion: Mice must have come by and made the chewing marks

Known factual phenomenon: Dark matter
Known factual property: Excerts gravitational forces
Observation: Gravitational forces that exceed those of the immediately visible mass in the universe
Conclusion: Dark matter must be invisible

If taking this approach to a scientific quest, the objective becomes very different from what you initially set off to explore. You actually have to have evidential knowledge of the existence of whichever phenomenon that's included in your observation. What need not be included is knowledge of the phenomena that account for the observed phenomena. That's what you set out to explore in the first place. And it does not serve you well to insist on the existence thereof. That's the same as skipping the exploration alltogether and instead filling the gap with pink frogs, dark matter, Zeuses or whatever you feel like filling it with.

If we make this a go instead, i.e. some investigation where you don't need to insist on the existence of anything except what has already been evidentially established to exist in the natural world, it will look like the following.

Known factual phenomenon: Lightning bolts
Known factual property: Lightning bolts cause severe pain or death.
Observation: People hit by lightning bolts when uttering the name of "Zeus" in a derogatory way
Conclusion: ? (please, please inform me of the conclusion you had in mind).

Known factual phenomenon: Mouse (there is nothing wrong with this approach since mouse are known as well as electrical cables are known)
Known factual property: Chews on electrical cables
Observation: Electrical cables with chewing marks
Conclusion: Mice must have come by and made the chewing marks

Known factual phenomenon: Mass
Known factual property: Gravitational force
Observation: Gravitational forces that exceed those of the immediately visible mass in the universe
Conclusion: Mass exists in an amount that accounts for all the gravitional forces observed (let's just call the difference between the total amount and the actually visible amount for dark matter since we can't immediately see it)

Conclusion is logical fallacy. There may be other reasons why these people were hit by lightning, such as having metal on their persons at the time.

Again fallacious conclusion. One could conclude that mice might have made those chewing marks. They may have been put there by something else.

There is not sufficient facts to come to a definitive conclusion.

Mice might have come by and made the chewing marks.

No, the conclusion is inductive, not fallacious. My intention is to make this as wide as possible - for which induction is a perfect instrument.

Again, the conclusion is based on induction and is not fallacious.

This applies to the rest of your comments as well.

But yes, ok, you're right, SteerPike, about the exact wording. It should either have said "Possible conclusion: Something must have .. etc." or "Conclusion: Something may or might have .. etc."

Thanks for pointing it out.

the way you have put your argument appears to me illogical and clearly partial which no one on this forum may consider it as even slightly acceptable. However i would answer all your queries in one statement. Can you tell me any single line in the Holy Quran which is against humanity as a whole. But you need to put it in its right context. [15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it. in addition to that, whatever you misquote sensibly, please provide full citation and the right perspective. see yaaa

Take Newton's optics (which remained the top scientific explanation of light for decades, before it was replaced with the wave model, for which the reasoning is almost the same):

Known factual phenomenon: Light
Known factual property: travels in a straight line
Observation: projectiles travel in a straight line
Conclusion: Light must be made of particles.

Let me rephrase it:

Known factual phenomenon: Lightning bolts
Known factual property: Hits people who uttered the name of "Zeus" in a derogatory way
Observation: People tend to respond violently to insults
Conclusion: There must be someone called "Zeus" who is able to hit people with lightning bolts


I don't see any essential difference between the two reasonings - the one regarding the existence of photons, and the one regarding the existence of Zeus. And it seems to me that the first one is unquestionably scientific. As I see it, your reasoning makes the discovery of any new existing element or property impossible. This would include gravity, dark matter, and mass (none of which is observable directly, as far as I know).

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Your rephrasing is flawed in so many ways but neither it nor its flaws was the point. The point I made was that Dilettante insisted on the existence of Zeus in order to allegedly explore the existence of Zeus. A circular reference. Despite it's general flaws, your rephrasing does not insist on the existence of Zeus in order to conclude that Zeus exists.

Nor does the approach towards light insist on the existence of photons as a premise for the existence of photons. What is the relevance to the preceding discussion?

Which of the reasonings? And how?

Lordie this is an old plate of soup.

Check the Mithras legends too - this has been mentioned in several old threads I think.

Re Mulsims being blah blah blah - I am in agreement with other comments in this thread that Muslims are about the same as Christians in their dominate the world and smite the heathens mentality.

At the moment they are perhaps being more violent and unpleasant than others - but look at past history. The crusades were fairly unpleasant - with some TERRIBLE massacres of the Muslims by the Christians - whereas there were cirumstances when the Muslims treated Chrsitians with far greater restraint and justice.

Regarding the seige of Jerusalem by the crusaders in 1099

According to Fulcher of Chartres: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared".

Thusly - I am not much of a fan of any religeon.

So, can there be more than one correct religion, Amadeo?

-I am 56 now, i was an alcoholic till i was 41, for the last 16 years i have searched for truth. I became willing and i did break myself to the core of my being. I have been in 2 foreign countrys and quite a few states meeting people from all walks of life. What i found for th most part was deep inside we all have an inherent good will, we're all subject to our unique living situatons. This world needs now more than ever people willing to drop any bias they have and assume we can do better than we have been told.

Ultimatly it is our choice whether we continue to hurt ourselves and our children, or can we start finding common ground to help each other. Jesus is my role model, of eveything i know he lived and through example kept his honor to the grave. He has enough documented proof on earth of doing what i personally would only expect a son of God to be able to perform. I read his words, what went before matters not to me as much as the truth those words have meant in all the life around me. I have had a true peace of mind for a long time now, i have dealt with all my devils and the peace in my soul is absolute. I would wish each one of you this peace, it speaks louder than this world we live in. Gods Blessings on you and your families.

If it's not the point, then don't speak about it. Either retract that comment, or develop it - don't just mention it for the sake of mentioning it. I think my rephrasing is fine (although it's obviously a bit more than just a rephrasing) - but I'm not going to defend it before you actually make an effort at attacking it.
According to what I read, Dilettante was establishing a theory (the existence of a being called Zeus who controls lightning) which could then be confronted with facts to be confirmed or infirmed. Very similar to many scientific theories (if not all). This is why I wrote that, if your attack on Dilettante's reasoning is correct, then you'd have to reject a lot of the existing science.
Dilettante never wrote that the existence of Zeus is a premise for proving the existence of Zeus. He's been pretty clear that he was establishing a theory which could later be tested.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)