A lot of your argument is based on likelihood. What are you basing likelihood on? (For example, when you comment that dog-gods, pug-gods etc. are unlikely)

Do we have any Xenophanes fans on the forum — ThePhilosopherFromDixie

"One god greatest among gods and men,
not at all like mortals in body or in thought."

He's admirable in many ways, yes.

Terrapin:

It's each additional addition that makes it progressively more unlikely. I had in mind the Sam Harris interview on The Young Turks.

Basically, he argues in the following way:

There is likehood x of Jesus coming back (as Christians claim). The likelihood decreases if you add that not only is He coming back, but that he's coming back to x location (Jacksonville, MS, if I recall correctly as the Mormon claim).

Likewise, the likelihood decreases the more additions you add.

God -> gods -> dog gods -> pug dog dogs -> pug dog gods who eat kibble and chase postal workers.

Admittedly, this "unlikely" argument isn't directly from Xenophanes. It's more an extension of what he's arguing.

I think, at its core, the bit that's really Xenophanes' directly is the psychological projection bit.