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

[Nay_Sayer]

Since Huggy has failed so very hard. Allow me to bestow upon you tangible pieces of evidence for FSM.

1: Unlike huggy's depressing ceiling lights, We have here millennia-old rock paintings of FSM during one of his glorious visitations that you can actually go visit.

[Edwardo Piet]

Tautology IS about as tight as reasoning gets, I reckon.

The great thing about tautologies is: They're always true by definition.

See what I did there?

---

---

[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!!!!


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.

Nope. I am not making an argument (just picking one apart). So, I make no assertions. Mathilda originally said that God does not make sense because all intelligence is subject to the law of thermodynamics. My point was and is that if God exists, he is by definition an exception. There is no argument against God that contains the word 'thermodynamics'. 

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.’

That might be a point if I was making an argument that contained those components. I know better. You are confusing an argument with try to explain what the meaning of a couple of words are, like 'supernatural'. By pointing out that Mathilda's claim is flawed, unknowable, and her conclusion is an argument from ignorance is not the same thing as making my own argument. Go ahead, show me where I made an argument with a premise and conclusion that I can't defend (definition of an assertion). 

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?

The definition of God guarantees an exception to the law of physics. I don't have to explain definitions. 

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?

Well, for starters

1. "Throwing" is an activity involving matter.
2. "Air" actually is matter
3. "Gravity" would not have an effect on something supernatural

So, by definition alone, I can rule out your analogy. But it does serve to illustrate my complaint about Mathilda's comments. She demands that I defend definitions. I don't have to. She can't show that the concept of 'God' or 'supernatural' is problematic. She is stuck with the possibility that these are exceptions. I don't have to prove their existence to point out these are exceptions. She keeps demanding why? By definition.

[LadyForCamus]

Since Huggy has failed so very hard.  Allow me to bestow upon you tangible pieces of evidence for FSM.

1: Unlike huggy's depressing ceiling lights, We have here millennia-old rock paintings of FSM during one of his glorious visitations that you can actually go visit.

You are cracking me up with these! 😂

[Nay_Sayer]

Since Huggy has failed so very hard.  Allow me to bestow upon you tangible pieces of evidence for FSM.

1: Unlike huggy's depressing ceiling lights, We have here millennia-old rock paintings of FSM during one of his glorious visitations that you can actually go visit.

You are cracking me up with these! 😂

RAmen, Already second hand proof FSM brings joy and laughter to all.

[SteveII]

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. 

Bullshit.  It's not an argument from ignorance.  It's an inductive argument, and it's valid.  "All examples of intelligence we have are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, therefore we are justified in believing that all cases of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics."  The same goes for your typical complaint about arguments against miracles being begging the question.  All she is doing is asking you to justify your believing otherwise by providing one counter-example.  Sheesh!  You are a master at uncharitable interpretation of your opponent's arguments.

Bullshit

Here was her original statement:
"Conversely an eternal god is thermodynamically implausible for two reasons. First it violates the second law of thermodynamics because entropy can never decrease in an isolated system and no process is 100% efficient. Secondly, the formation of intelligence is best explained as a thermodynamic process". https://atheistforums.org/post-1712719.html#pid1712719

Go ahead, defend that. OR tell her to drop this. Ball is in your court.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Nope. I am not making an argument (just picking one apart). So, I make no assertions. Mathilda originally said that God does not make sense because all intelligence is subject to the law of thermodynamics. My point was and is that if God exists, he is by definition an exception. There is no argument against God that contains the word 'thermodynamics'. 

But until you demonstrate that your god exists then my point still holds because absolutely every example of intelligence obeys the laws of thermodynamics. Not only that, but intelligence can be understood to function because of the laws of thermodynamics.

Using your standards of argument, anything anyone says can be countered with if X exists, where X contradicts your argument, then X by this definition I've just created is an exception. The difference is that you are giving your X a name ... God.

The definition of God guarantees an exception to the law of physics. I don't have to explain definitions. 

The definition of a god-eater guarantees that your god does not exist. I don't have to explain definitions.

But it does serve to illustrate my complaint about Mathilda's comments. She demands that I defend definitions. I don't have to. She can't show that the concept of 'God' or 'supernatural' is problematic.

I already have shown that 'supernatural' is meaningless word. If everything that exists is part of nature and supernatural is not part of nature, then anything supernatural does not exist. Nothing supernatural exists. If something supernatural existed then it would be part of nature. We may not understand it, we may not even ever have a practical means of ever understanding it, but it would still obey certain  laws.

The same argument applies to god. The very term is something that cannot be adequately defined, and like with supernatural, would lose all utility if it ever was. Because once you started to define what a god was, it wouldn't be a god any more, it would be something else. Both god and supernatural are meant as vague nebulous terms with no clear definition where people can rest their flawed premises.

[Angrboda]

Bullshit.  It's not an argument from ignorance.  It's an inductive argument, and it's valid.  "All examples of intelligence we have are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, therefore we are justified in believing that all cases of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics."  The same goes for your typical complaint about arguments against miracles being begging the question.  All she is doing is asking you to justify your believing otherwise by providing one counter-example.  Sheesh!  You are a master at uncharitable interpretation of your opponent's arguments.

Bullshit

Here was her original statement:
"Conversely an eternal god is thermodynamically implausible for two reasons. First it violates the second law of thermodynamics because entropy can never decrease in an isolated system and no process is 100% efficient. Secondly, the formation of intelligence is best explained as a thermodynamic process". https://atheistforums.org/post-1712719.html#pid1712719

Go ahead, defend that. OR tell her to drop this. Ball is in your court.

I just did. Are you deaf? Exactly how is this a response to what I said? Her latter statement is a clear example of an inductive argument. The key word here is "implausible," which, despite your earlier misrepresentation of the definition of the word in an argument with me has "improbable" as one of its definitions.

implausible

1. Not worthy of applause; personally unacceptable. Obs.
2. Not having the appearance of truth, probability, or acceptability; not plausible.

[Edwardo Piet]

My point was and is that if God exists, he is by definition an exception.

Isn't that rather... convenient?

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.’

So how exactly does you basically repeating over and over how much you like to commit the fallacy of Special Pleading make your position rational, again? Remind me.

Which reminds me of this song that is fun:





And that's irrelevant. Kind of like your silly beliefs. Only at least this shit sounds good.

That might be a point if I was making an argument that contained those components. I know better. You are confusing an argument with try to explain what the meaning of a couple of words are, like 'supernatural'. By pointing out that Mathilda's claim is flawed, unknowable, and her conclusion is an argument from ignorance is not the same thing as making my own argument. Go ahead, show me where I made an argument with a premise and conclusion that I can't defend (definition of an assertion). 

Mathilda is not making an argument from ignorance because she's not claiming that the absence of evidence of the absurd claim that is "God" means that such a God is logically impossible. She's claiming that the absurd claim that is "God" is absurd because it is absurd.

The definition of God guarantees an exception to the law of physics. I don't have to explain definitions. 

So, once again, how does you repeating over and over that you love comitting the Special Pleading fallacy make your position at all rational or reasonable?

Furthermore, considering the fact that God is completely superflous and existence can precede the universe WITHOUT all the Hocus Pocus and farty Godly nonsense... I just... I just can't understand how you fuckers can believe in such utter bollocks unless you're just fucking stupid, brainwashed or dishonest. It's becoming incredibly difficult to not be an anti-theist at this point because the alternative seems to be me pretending to not think you're all childish idiots... and it would be dishonest of me to pretend.

---

---

[I_am_not_mafia]

Here was her original statement:
"Conversely an eternal god is thermodynamically implausible for two reasons. First it violates the second law of thermodynamics because entropy can never decrease in an isolated system and no process is 100% efficient. Secondly, the formation of intelligence is best explained as a thermodynamic process". https://atheistforums.org/post-1712719.html#pid1712719

Go ahead, defend that. OR tell her to drop this. Ball is in your court.

Yet you haven't provided a single way of refuting that statement. All you have done is come up with circular logic along the lines of:

"I postulate that X exists which I define as something as something contradicting your statement, but I am going to complain when you ask for evidence that X exists or even reason to believe that it exists."

Garbage in garbage out.

Your whole argument relies on the existence of X and without it your whole argument falls apart.

So again, I ask you to provide one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Again, you are unable to admit that you are unable to.