No. Two is the successor of the successor of 0. This is not knowledge that most people have.
No, but they have the knowledge by rote of how 2 is defined, which is 1 and an additional 1. You are insisting upon a particular way of arriving at it that is not necessary in order to point to an extremely poor example where you compared an axiom to a theory.
And also, I think 0 was invented after 2.
It’s just a bad example. Your person in a room argument at least makes sense logically. It’s a poor example for completely different reasons.
No, all cases of obesity are a result of too many calories. Fat cannot magically appear on a body, no matter the person. Fat is stored extra calories. Ok, so you need to eat more food than calories you burn to have enough vitamins and minerals. Either eat less and take a vitamin pill or walk around the block. It is flat out untrue that it’s impossible for some people to lose weight due to their biology.
What reasons are those? That we see a person with our eyes and the redshift with radio telescopes?
If that’s your issue, can we then say that the existence of microorganisms is not obvious?
Yes, pretty much. Most people know how to operate their eyes, most people do not know how to operate a radio telescope, or to interpret the data from a radio telescope.
Yes. Though one can see microorganisms with a regular microscope, and that only requires generalized knowledge of how a lens works.
I don’t think so, because I don’t think that interpersonal comparisons of obviousness are really possible. I mean, everything is obvious to you once you understand it. To someone grappling with problems at the fringes of mathematics or to a sixth grader learning to solve a quadratic equation for the first time, the solution to his/her problem is equally not obvious despite the differences in cognitive machinery required to get the job done.
You said it made more sense than the Big Bang. Did I misunderstand you?
I think we are just going to go around and around. Is it any less obvious than “in the beginning there was the Word?” Or that light was the first thing created? How does that make sense?
As with any explanation, you have got to be able to evaluate the data. It is very easy to spin a story, say, the Bible, if you don’t actually have any data that constrain it. If you cannot evaluate what data actually do constrain your story, then sure, it will never be obvious. I think this is no different than any other endeavor, though.
They may think it makes sense, but an ape can read Nietzsche. He just doesn’t understand it.
Yes, it’s not obvious initially. One has to learn the skills. The fact of the matter is we don’t teach most people how to judge the Big Bang.
I don’t recall saying that. I remember saying that it’s ridiculous to take Genesis literally. Just now I said it makes more sense to a lot of people, irrespective of its truth.
I don’t think origin of the universe theories of any particular species are obvious.
Right, but the obvious ridiculousness of Genesis does not make the BBT more obviously true by comparison.
An ape cannot read Nietzche. Ape’s cannot read.
Ok, here is a reminder:
If the Big Bang Theory does not make more sense than Genesis, then either it makes the same amount of sense or Genesis makes more sense. Which is it?
You’ve never seen A Fish Called Wanda?
They unlike you, do have that excuse for not learning.
Indeed.
I recently attended a premiere party for an upcoming HBO documentary (sort of…it was fictionalized with actors and done as a story) on the life of Temple Grandin. Ms. Grandin is autistic. Her ability to cope and get on with life was, shall we say, difficult. Despite this she now has a PhD in Animal Husbandry (or something like that) and her designs for moving cattle are now used in 1/3 of all meat processing plants in the US and is a professor at the University of Colorado.
Of note, and she mentioned this in a Q&A after the movie, was how different her perceptions are. She thinks, literally, in pictures. She mentioned that mathematics was an absolutely horrible subject for her. I don’t doubt she knows what 1+1 is but nothing about the subject was easy for her and it does not take much more complicated math to throw her off. That said her perceptions allowed her to see things in a meat processing plant differently and it was obvious, to her, how they could be improved (and she was correct).
Point being what is obvious to one is not to another. 1+1 is easy but 265,483*973,654 is considered a lot harder to do in our heads although essentially it is just as “obvious” since it derives from basic mathematical rules (and there are some people out there who can do that in their head in an instant so it is obvious to them).
The answer is that the vast majority of people lack the tools to verify either.
Not in twenty years.
Except that I understand the arguments being put forth by everyone. So what do you base the idea of my lack of learning on?
Nothing I’ve ever read tries to get people to accept the Big Bang blindly. The evidence for it is always set out. Ditto for evolution - many of Dawkins’ books take the arguments against it head on, and refutes them.
I’ve done peer review, and I’ve been on a jury, and peer review is far more rigorous. Neither science nor the legal system claims 100% correctness. And in science a hypothesis/theory keeps on getting tried, and has to pass each time. In science, OJ wouldn’t have caught a break.
That may well be true, but the reason why we have so many posts on this thread is because this isn’t what you actually said.
Ah well. Otto argues that he isn’t as stupid as an ape because apes can’t read Nietzsche, to which his sister replies that apes can but they just can’t understand it. It might have been a monkey or a gorilla, but it doesn’t much matter.
And being able to read those books requires specialized technical knowledge that most people do not possess.
What we are arguing for here is not correctness but obviousness.
I said it’s not more obvious. If it were more obvious then more people would accept it. No?
We’ll get into a dissection of Genesis here in a minute. That’ll be fun. 
The two are not connected. It is not obvious to me how this computer works, but I accept that it does and that there is good science behind it. It is certainly obvious to someone exactly how it works, perhaps to a lot of people. Acceptance of an idea and its obviousness are not perfectly correlated, I don’t think.
People don’t accept the Big Bang Theory for a whole lot of reasons, many of which I think are not very well informed. I don’t think this has anything to do with its obviousness. As per my previous post to which Whack-A-Mole added interesting color, I do not think interpersonal comparison of obviousness is possible because everything becomes obvious once you understand it.
Fun like having a tooth extraction without anaesthesia is fun. 
Then there is a problem with the question posed by the OP.
The reason I do not accept it is because I do not fully understand it. I do not reject it for the same reason.
We can refrain if you like.
What specialized technical knowledge is required to read “Climbing Mt. Improbable?” The cosmology books I’ve read don’t use equations (most of them) and are designed to be read standalone. I assume that you don’t mean ability to read and reason at a rudimentary level constitute specialized knowledge.
Is the earth being round obvious or not, not considering pictures from space?
My wife is a first grade teacher. Elementary addition is one of the subjects she teaches. She can tell stories about kids for whom 1+1=2 is far from obvious.
What’s obvious to one may not be obvious to another. Obviously.