[Rebel_Ace]

"...You are implying that there is something wrong with a theist's thinking..."

You miss the point of the post entirely. The argument that was presented was INDEPENDENT of whatever mythical being you might wish to discuss. The argument presented applied EQUALLY WELL to ANY mythical being you "filled in the blanks" with.

Since many mythical beings are "mutually exclusive", ie, if Jehovah exists then Odin does not, and since the argument works for ANY of them, then the ARGUMENT is worthless, and using it to butress the belief in the existance of any particular supernatural being is FAULTY REASONING.

I am not "implying" that there is something wrong with ALL theist's thinking. I am EXPLICITLY pointing out the faulty reasoning of the specific argument presented. Anyone, regardless of their spiritual beliefs, using that argument is engaged in demonstrably faulty logic, and should be corrected.

As far as your further questions regarding epistimology, one might begin by supposing that something is "functioning as it is supposed to" when it operates in harmony with reality. Absent any other information, if you met a person on the street ranting and raving that "the Invisible Space Aliens" were about to get him, you would rightly conclude that he was in need of some corrective treatment. However, if you subsequently noticed footprints appearing in the snow with no visible person making them, this new information might make you re-evaluate your initial assessment of the person.

[Diamond]

the argument that was presented was INDEPENDENT of whatever mythical being you might wish to discuss. The argument presented applied EQUALLY WELL to ANY mythical being you "filled in the blanks" with.

How do you know that any particular being under discussion is mythical? You don't. You just presuppose it. That's my point.

something is "functioning as it is supposed to" when it operates in harmony with reality.

Whose "reality" would that be? The brain chemistry of the person on the street ranting and raving that "the Invisible Space Aliens" were about to get him is just as much a product of evolutionary natural selection as any other brain chemistry and is just as real. On what grounds do you say that neurochemical products of evolutionary chance/necessity needs "corrective treatment"? How can there be something objectively "wrong" with what evolution has wrought?

Cordially,