The point of using Zeus was to show that I wasn’t making a case. Twice now I have gone out of my way — which Twitter makes a chore! — to tell you that I’m not making any positive assertions of any gods.
Here’s how we could put the argument:
- All real interaction with material things is detectable by material things.
- The purported activity of Zeus, an immaterial being, has not been detected.
- Thus, Zeus cannot exist.
The Zeusian could find fault with premise #2, claiming private religious experience of Zeus, and offering the following refinement:
- The purported activity of Zeus, an immaterial being, has not been reliably detected (like through scientific observation).
But if this refinement takes place, then the conclusion is a non sequitur.
You could counter, fixing the argument to logically-follow, by modifying premise #1 in reaction:
- All real interaction with material things is reliably detectable (like through scientific observation) by material things.
But then you’d be begging a question the Zeusian would dispute.
Let me know if you find any flaws in what I’m saying. Remember that I’m just calling out a non sequitur; I’m not making a positive case for any God or gods or spirits or what have you. That’s why I use “Zeus” in the example: A thing we both agree is nonexistent.