Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[I_am_not_mafia]

Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

GOD. 

Why can't you see that all you are doing is insisting that I prove the existence of God. That is all you are doing!!!!

No, I am asking for one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Something that actually exists, not something made up and given the excuse of being 'supernatural'.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension?

Your form of the argument is a just an argument from ignorance. You are asserting that intelligence is subject to the laws of thermodynamics because I can't prove otherwise. You have no other reasons for thinking so. This is a fallacious argument and your conclusion is meaningless. 

Maybe you should read up about arguments from ignorance (if you do not have problems with reading comprehension that is).

I am stating that all known examples of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

You are the one making the claim that intelligence does not need to be subject to the laws of thermodynamics (by hand waving and mumbling 'supernatural') ... yet you are not explaining how or why and then accusing me of being ignorant. Even though you are the one making the claim and refusing to back it up with any reasoning or evidence.

Yet because I can't fill in the gaps for your half arsed explanations relying on equivocation, I am the ignorant one apparently.

[Ravenshire]

I am "effectively admitting" that God does not exist in the natural category.

I'll buy that. After all, the only examples of things we have in the world that are outside the natural category are man made. Your gawd fits quite nicely there.

[LadyForCamus]

Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

GOD. 

Why can't you see that all you are doing is insisting that I prove the existence of God. That is all you are doing!!!!


Your form of the argument is a just an argument from ignorance. You are asserting that intelligence is subject to the laws of thermodynamics because I can't prove otherwise.

No. You are asserting that a timeless, changeless, immaterial, supernatural being who has intelligence but no physical prescience, is capable of causing physical events and interacting with the physical world.  Boy, that’s quite a claim! I don’t know of anything in existence that isn’t subject to the laws of physics. You say there is one thing, and it’s God.

So, when asked how such a being could be what you assert he is, and do what you assert he does, your explanation is: ‘Well, he’s god. We can’t understand. It’s unknowable.’ You want to invoke him as an explanation for things, and use his alleged existence in positive arguments, without actually explaining anything. That is arguing in a circle.  You’re using ‘god’s unknowable powers’ as a place-holder for, ‘I don’t know. He just is, and he just can.’

When you posit god as the sole exception to the laws of physics without offering a coherent description of the mechanics of such an entity, you are essentially just asserting his existence, and expecting us to take that assertion seriously. Why should we?

Consider this conversation:

You: When you throw things in the air they will fall down, because of gravity.

Me: No, not all things.

You: Okay, give me an example of a thing that doesn’t fall down when you throw it in the air.

Me:  A Flim Flam.

You:  What is a Flim Flam, and explain how it can violate gravity?

Me:  Well, a Flim Flam is supernatural, so there is really no way for us to comprehend how.  

I would imagine your response would be something along the lines of, “then why should I take seriously the claim that such a thing exists at all?

[SteveII]

GOD. 

Why can't you see that all you are doing is insisting that I prove the existence of God. That is all you are doing!!!!

No, I am asking for one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Something that actually exists, not something made up and given the excuse of being 'supernatural'.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? 

Your form of the argument is a just an argument from ignorance. You are asserting that intelligence is subject to the laws of thermodynamics because I can't prove otherwise. You have no other reasons for thinking so. This is a fallacious argument and your conclusion is meaningless. 

Maybe you should read up about arguments from ignorance (if you do not have problems with reading comprehension that is).

I am stating that all known examples of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

You are the one making the claim that intelligence does not need to be subject to the laws of thermodynamics (by hand waving and mumbling 'supernatural') ... yet you are not explaining how or why and then accusing me of being ignorant. Even though you are the one making the claim and refusing to back it up with any reasoning or evidence.

Yet because I can't fill in the gaps for your half arsed explanations relying on equivocation, I am the ignorant one apparently.

This is real simple. God, by definition, would be an exception to your claim that "all known examples of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics." You think that I have to prove God or your statement is true. That IS EXACTLY equivalent to what I said above: "...all you are doing is insisting that I prove the existence of God. That is all you are doing!!!!"

Thinking that your statement is true unless I prove it wrong is very much the definition of an argument from ignorance. 

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
   
   
2. false
   
   
3. unknown between true or false
   
   
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[I_am_not_mafia]

This is real simple. God, by definition, would be an exception to your claim that "all known examples of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics." You think that I have to prove God or your statement is true. That IS EXACTLY equivalent to what I said above: "...all you are doing is insisting that I prove the existence of God. That is all you are doing!!!!"

But your god cannot exist because of the existence of god-eaters. The moment a god comes into existence it instantaneously gets eaten by a god-eater.

Of course using your standards I don't have to define what a god-eater is, or provide evidence of it existing or even say how it could even eat a god because it's supernatural.

You know, I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

[Edwardo Piet]

In the audio there is mention of the light moving around and hovering over different people. THIS CORROBORATES THE PICTURE.

There is also video of eye witness testimony who say they saw the light personally. THIS CORROBORATES THE PICTURE AND AUDIO.

Now it's up to you to debunk all THREE , not just one like you guys usually attempt to do.

For the billionth time, nothing here requires debunking.  There is nothing here that falls outside the realm of science and natural explanation:

1. A priest claims he saw a light.

2. Some other people claim they saw a light

3. There is a photo of light.

What you have is corroborating evidence of light. What you don’t have, is evidence that the light is God. No one knows for certain what the source of the light was, but there are in fact more than a few perfectly natural and mundane possibilities. You’re connecting some serious dots without reason, evidence, or justification because you already believe this god is real, and you believe you’ve got “knowledge” of his nature as it has been fed to you through years of studying the Bible.  

Huggy, you are a living, breathing example of the difference between objectivity and confirmation bias.

This post is so fucking epic it hurts.

---

---

[Minimalist]

I am "effectively admitting" that God does not exist in the natural category.

Yes, Stevie.  And we call that particular "supernatural category" your imagination.

[Huggy Bear]

One faith healer exposed cheating with a radio transmitter.

---

---

A practical demonstration of how to cheat.

---

---

It took about ten seconds to find these Huggy.

That is one of the problems with trying to prove a negative.  The proponent for the positive just comes back with one more worthless bit.

It took ten seconds to find a case totally unrelated to what we're discussing? Are you suggesting that one con artist preacher equates to all preachers being con artists? William Branham started preaching in the 1930's, so how is the guy with the earpiece remotely related?

[Edwardo Piet]

One faith healer exposed cheating with a radio transmitter.

---

---

A practical demonstration of how to cheat.

---

---

It took about ten seconds to find these Huggy.

That is one of the problems with trying to prove a negative.  The proponent for the positive just comes back with one more worthless bit.

It took ten seconds to find a case totally unrelated to what we're discussing? Are you suggesting that one con artist preacher equates to all preachers being con artists? William Branham started preaching in the 1930's, so how is the guy with the earpiece remotely related?

Huggy, you still remain to be the most idiotic theist I've ever known in 17 years of internetz. Is it rather normal over there, where you live? Or are you considered batshit crazy by most people even in your local area?

---

---

[LadyForCamus]

For the billionth time, nothing here requires debunking.  There is nothing here that falls outside the realm of science and natural explanation:

1. A priest claims he saw a light.

2. Some other people claim they saw a light

3. There is a photo of light.

What you have is corroborating evidence of light. What you don’t have, is evidence that the light is God. No one knows for certain what the source of the light was, but there are in fact more than a few perfectly natural and mundane possibilities. You’re connecting some serious dots without reason, evidence, or justification because you already believe this god is real, and you believe you’ve got “knowledge” of his nature as it has been fed to you through years of studying the Bible.  

Huggy, you are a living, breathing example of the difference between objectivity and confirmation bias.

This post is so fucking epic it hurts.

---

---

Lmao!  Please include audio commentary with all your posts going forward.  I love it.