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

[LadyForCamus]

I guess Huggy is just going to blow past the fact that Min demolished his precious, ‘reliable’ eye-witness account of the supernatural light.  By his OWN admission, that was the only thing he had that placed Christianity ahead of Odinism, and now it’s gone.

Link Min's post sweetie, because I don't think Min's post does all the demolishing you think it does.

His post #425 followed by my post #432.

[Amarok]

Link Min's post

Why so you can deny the ass kicking your position receives 

 sweetie

Creep 

because I don't think Min's post does all the demolishing you think it does.

No he demolishes your numbskull beliefs pretty thoroughly. You on the other hand ....

[I_am_not_mafia]

No you did not. You gave no example of an intelligence that is not subject to the law of thermodynamics.

I am still waiting for an example. You know, an example that actually exists in reality.

1. Since all of our observations are within the universe and everything in the universe is subject the its laws (including thermodynamics), your statement is logically the same as: "all observations of intelligence are within the universe". Stop there. Do you understand that? 

Glad you said that. Nothing else needs to be said.

You cannot give an example of intelligence that is not subject to the law of thermodynamics.

But to be fair to you, I was originally using this as an argument as to why your god cannot exist so I will address the next point

2. Since God, if he exists or not, by definition, is not made up of stuff in the universe, he is not subject to the laws of physics.

This actually ties in with my second argument about why gods cannot exist. Because there cannot be an unambiguous definition of what a god is. If you try coming up with one then you have something that is not a god. An alien for example. But the relevance here is that you cannot say that a god is by definition not made up of stuff in the universe and not subject to the laws of physics ... because there is no single definition of a what a god is.

But getting back to why intelligence is important, I'll refer back to my earlier post:

It only seems nonsense to you because you do not understand the nature of intelligence. How can your god exist or think without being constrained by the laws of Thermodynamics?

This is because intelligence is a form of self-organisation and self-organisation happens because of the laws of thermodynamics. I know intelligence probably seems all magical to you, but it really isn't. Hence my analogy in another thread of the difficulty of convincing mechanics that my car is telepathic. The same laws that make a ball roll down a slope and come to a stop, are the same laws that allow crystals to form, that allow weather patterns to play out, planets and solar systems to form and the same laws that allow intelligence to take place.

So you have spent many pages arguing that your god is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics and at the same time have been unwittingly without knowing it arguing for me to accept something that means that your god cannot be intelligent.

It really is like arguing that although all real-world vehicles have to move to be considered a vehicle, your god-mobile doesn't need to move because it's a supernatural vehicle. But without acknowledging that if true, it would no longer be a god-vehicle but a god-container

In the same way that a vehicle needs to move something to be considered a vehicle, intelligence needs to settle into stable configurations. The function of intelligence is inherently tied to thermodynamics. And by intelligence I am talking about strong, generalisable intelligence. It needs to be embodied in an environment, it needs to be active but not to the point of being chaotic.

I think therefore I am constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Now if you are willing to drop the requirement for your god to be eternal and accept that it must subject to the laws of thermodynamics, then you can have a thinking god. But the consequence of this is that it's only a god until we come up with a better definition for whatever the alien is.

[Jenny A]

---

What I saying is much more basic.  If a particular type of miracle can be faked, then absent controlled conditions to prevent faking, it's not proof of anything.  

If I showed you a video of a man pulling a coin out of his or someone else's ear  and testified I saw it happen  would you believe he was magic? No? Why not? Because it's a common magic trick that's why.  To know he'd really pulled a coin out of his ear or mine you'd have to first strip search him, use a bare room of your own choice, and deprive him of most of his clothes.  

Many, many, fake faith healers have been exposed over the years.  Not surprisingly, it's often magicians who expose them.  The methods are shared in common with psychic readers who have been faking a along time too. Because it's commonly faked, more than just I saw it happen is required to show it really happened.  Controlled conditions are required

Fake healers use a variety of methods.  Not all communication requires radio. Just memorizing what you've  been told before the show works just fine.  So does suggestive questioning.  So no, the year it happened doesn't matter.  Without controlled conditions no report of a faith healer, including the accounts in the Gospels, can be assumed to be real.

---

Spoken as someone who has no Idea of how "faith healing" works.

First of all there is no such thing as a 'faith healer' there is not one person with the ability to heal, I'n the video I posted, at 3:36 Branham made it clear that he had no ability to heal, but to get it in your head the Jesus Christ has already done it.

---

---

Healing is a finished work:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. - 1 Peter 2:24

In order to receive healing one must accept it on the basis of faith. This is why Branham with out ever previously meeting a person could tell them things about their life that he couldn't possibly know, the purpose of this isn't to show off, but to strengthen their faith in order to receive healing.

Science has tapped into this by way of the placebo effect, the difference is that the patients faith is based on a lie... Get it.

God strengthens your faith by telling you the truth, Science attempts to do this by lying.

As far as con artist go, you can find people throughout the bible that try to mimic the genuine gift of God. The reason why someone would attempt to fake any of Gods gifts, other than money and fame, is because the bible states that certain gifts would be in the church, if your church has none of these gifts then there is something wrong, hence the fake impersonators.

Whether you would attribute real miraculous healing to god working through a human agent, a magician, or Odin, is irrelevant. To demononstate a miracle you must first demonstrate that there is a miracle. That requires eliminating the possibility of natural causes.

You are assuming the agency of god without first eliminating natural causes. I've shown that there are natural causes (i.e. faking) in many cases. So you must first eliminate the chance of faking in any particular case you would show as proof. You can't do that with just film and/or eyewitness testimony. Lying by both the healed and the healer is a common kind of fakery. So is the power of suggestion, leading questions, vauge statements, pre-healing screenings, and just knowing that most of the audience came to be healed of something.

It's as if even though you are sure that most of the time a 747 flies because natural forces, because the pilot says the last one was god, you believe it was god. If the flight is the same to all appearances as every other flight, his word means nothing. If the plane hovered dead still in the air for 30 minutes we can talk about the supernatural.

Or better yet, what about the magician who says, but this time I really did pull a coin from someone's ear?

[Huggy Bear]

Link Min's post sweetie, because I don't think Min's post does all the demolishing you think it does.

His post #425 followed by my post #432.

First of all you and Min's mistake is assuming that because I believe what she says about her experience 50+ years ago, that I somehow associate with her 100%, I referenced her because it was the shortest video I could find, there are plenty of eye witness testimony but those videos range anywhere from 30 min to 2 hours... you guys struggle with anything over 2 mins.

If you knew anything about William Branhams teachings, you'd know that he spoke against women preaching, wearing pants, and cutting their hair (all biblically based), Marilyn Hickey does all three, so she obviously doesn't adhere to Branhams teachings, she just happened to attend one of his services a long time ago.

But like I said, I could provide witness testimony all day, How about congressman Upshaw?

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

William David Upshaw (October 15, 1866 – November 21, 1952) served eight years in Congress (1919–1927), where he was such a strong proponent of the temperance movement that he became known as the "driest of the drys.".



Congressman Upshaw had been on crutches for 59 years, and this is Upshaw's own testimony which was written in the above tract.

I walked into that Branham-Baxter meeting in Calvary Temple, Los Angeles, loving God and His blessed Word, leaning on my crutches that had been my “buddies”-my helpful comrades for 59 of my 66 years as a cripple-7 of those years spend on bed; I walked out that night of February 8th, leaving my crutches on the platform – the song of deliverance ringing in my heart in happy consonance with the should sof victory from those who thronged about me – their tears of rejoicing crystal with the light of the skies’ chief among them was my blessed wife whose dear face, glowing amid her joyous exclamations: “Praise the Lord” and “Glory to God,” was beaming like a patch of Heaven.

---

Whether you would attribute real miraculous healing to god working through a human agent, a magician, or Odin, is irrelevant.  To demononstate a miracle you must first demonstrate that there is a miracle. That requires eliminating the possibility of natural causes.

You are assuming the agency of god without first eliminating natural causes.  I've shown that there are natural causes (i.e. faking) in many cases.  So you must first eliminate the chance of faking in any particular case you would show as proof.   You can't do that with just film and/or eyewitness testimony.   Lying by both the healed and the healer is a common kind of fakery.  So is the power of suggestion, leading questions, vauge statements,  pre-healing screenings, and just knowing that most of the audience came to be healed of something.

It's as if even though you are sure that most of the time a 747 flies because natural forces, because the pilot says the last one was god, you believe it was god.  If the flight is the same to all appearances as every other flight, his word means nothing.  If the plane hovered dead still in the air for 30 minutes we can talk about the supernatural.

Or better yet, what about the magician who says, but this time I really did pull a coin from someone's ear?

See above.

---

 sweetie

Creep 

You Jelly?

It's not my fault you look like Clint Howard.

---

---

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages

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

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

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


Therefor it is my conclusion that Odin is derived from Pagan Babylonian religion,

But all you have done is traced the evolution of a language yet somehow this means that 'Odin is derived from Pagan Babylonian religion'?

With that I rest my case.

I have an equally convincing argument for you ...

---

Are you serious Mathilda? It stands to reason as the language changes the names for the gods would change also...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin

Odin was known in Old English as Wōden, in Old Saxon as Wōdan, and in Old High German as Wuotan or Wōtan, all stemming from the reconstructed Proto-Germanic theonym *wōđanaz.

[I_am_not_mafia]

But all you have done is traced the evolution of a language yet somehow this means that 'Odin is derived from Pagan Babylonian religion'?

Are you serious Mathilda? It stands to reason as the language changes the names for the gods would change also...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin

Odin was known in Old English as Wōden, in Old Saxon as Wōdan, and in Old High German as Wuotan or Wōtan, all stemming from the reconstructed Proto-Germanic theonym *wōđanaz.

You may think that it stands to reason, but that's not the same thing as stating for sure that Odin came from Pagan Baylonian religions. After all, with all those different cultures, there may well have been different religions that died out and were replaced with something entirely new, or imported from another country.

For example take England. The English language has a very long history but there have been multiple religions in England while the language has evolved, including the late arrival of Christianity. And if right wing nuts are to be believed then this is to be pushed out by Islam.

So by your logic Jesus was derived from Odin.

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

[SteveII]

No.

Okay, good then, because such an assertion would be difficult to explain and almost impossible to demonstrate.  So I’ll remember going forward, that it is NOT your position that god is intelligent.

That is not the same thing (and you should be able to discern that). Because I didn't assert it in this discussion does not mean that I think that God is not intelligent. I'm trying not to assert OR argue anything. Mathilda's argument is so bad by itself that I shouldn't need even make a counter argument. 

It does not have to come to this every time we discuss the concept of God. Actually, it is a rather unsophisticated (I'm being charitable) to demand proof all the end of every sentence about God.

It’s rather obvious here that you didn’t answer my question.  I’ll ask again:

Why should we take seriously the positing of an entity that, by definition, requires no explanation for its alleged attributes and powers, and cannot be demonstrated to exist? 

But as you know, I can give a list of common reasons and arguments why it is reasonable to believe God exists.

No, none that aren’t either fatally, logically flawed, or reliant upon unsound premises. 

A 'flim falm' is not an analogy because it does not have a list of reason nor are there billions who would give personal experience testimony to its existence.

That you have a bunch of other people who believe in your inexplicable, indemonstrable entity, doesn’t change the fact that it IS inexplicable and indemonstrable, and as such, possesses no explanatory power with regard to anything in the real world.  And, is essentially indistinguishable from imagination.[/quote]

Are we moving on? Do you want positive arguments for God? You have seen my list: pick one (preferably in a new thread--this one has a stupid title). A reminder: this is not an argument--it is a list of reasons/arguments. 

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

I will predict the outcome of any discussion right now. I will successfully defend them because there are not logical flaws in them. So you will eventually just declare "well...it is not compelling." I will state that it is a cumulative case. You will say that it is not proof. I will post this: 

What exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

• Scientific proof
  
• Historical proof
  
• Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
  
• Proof resulting from personal experience
  

There also also different thresholds of proof:

• Possible
  
• More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
  
• Beyond reasonable doubt
  
• Absolute certainty
  

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some).

In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. 

Look at that. I saved us a lot of time if you just want to fast forward to the end and admit that belief in God is not your thing, but it is not irrational.

[Jenny A]

First of all you and Min's mistake is assuming that because I believe what she says about her experience 50+ years ago, that I somehow associate with her 100%, I referenced her because it was the shortest video I could find, there are plenty of eye witness testimony but those videos range anywhere from 30 min to 2 hours... you guys struggle with anything over 2 mins.

If you knew anything about William Branhams teachings, you'd know that he spoke against women preaching, wearing pants, and cutting their hair (all biblically based), Marilyn Hickey does all three, so she obviously doesn't adhere to Branhams teachings, she just happened to attend one of his services a long time ago.

But like I said, I could provide witness testimony all day, How about congressman Upshaw?

---

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


William David Upshaw (October 15, 1866 – November 21, 1952) served eight years in Congress (1919–1927), where he was such a strong proponent of the temperance movement that he became known as the "driest of the drys.".

---

Congressman Upshaw had been on crutches for 59 years, and this is Upshaw's own testimony which was written in the above tract.

I walked into that Branham-Baxter meeting in Calvary Temple, Los Angeles, loving God and His blessed Word, leaning on my crutches that had been my “buddies”-my helpful comrades for 59 of my 66 years as a cripple-7 of those years spend on bed; I walked out that night of February 8th, leaving my crutches on the platform – the song of deliverance ringing in my heart in happy consonance with the should sof victory from those who thronged about me – their tears of rejoicing crystal with the light of the skies’ chief among them was my blessed wife whose dear face, glowing amid her joyous exclamations: “Praise the Lord” and “Glory to God,” was beaming like a patch of Heaven.

---

Whether you would attribute real miraculous healing to god working through a human agent, a magician, or Odin, is irrelevant.  To demononstate a miracle you must first demonstrate that there is a miracle. That requires eliminating the possibility of natural causes.

You are assuming the agency of god without first eliminating natural causes.  I've shown that there are natural causes (i.e. faking) in many cases.  So you must first eliminate the chance of faking in any particular case you would show as proof.   You can't do that with just film and/or eyewitness testimony.   Lying by both the healed and the healer is a common kind of fakery.  So is the power of suggestion, leading questions, vauge statements,  pre-healing screenings, and just knowing that most of the audience came to be healed of something.

It's as if even though you are sure that most of the time a 747 flies because natural forces, because the pilot says the last one was god, you believe it was god.  If the flight is the same to all appearances as every other flight, his word means nothing.  If the plane hovered dead still in the air for 30 minutes we can talk about the supernatural.

Or better yet, what about the magician who says, but this time I really did pull a coin from someone's ear?

See above

I see one more personal testimony. And no, being a senitor does it make him a better witness. Show me a case that can be proven not to be fake. Hint: given the prevalence of fakery, delusion, and lying, you'll need controlled circumstances. For some reason faith healing never works under controlled circumstances.

[SteveII]

If god is thought to be outside of any method of proving existence, then surely he is to all intents and purposes non existent ?  
God cannot then claimed to be anywhere, or anything but a thought of the mind.

I did not say that God was "outside of any method of proving existence". We have at least the following:

1. Inferrence
2. Deductive reasoning
3. Interaction with the natural world 
    a. NT
    b. Continued miracles
    c. Testimony of experiences/changed lives/relationships and
    d. Personal experience.

[possibletarian]

If god is thought to be outside of any method of proving existence, then surely he is to all intents and purposes non existent ?  
God cannot then claimed to be anywhere, or anything but a thought of the mind.

I did not say that God was "outside of any method of proving existence". We have at least the following:

1. Inferrence
2. Deductive reasoning
3. Interaction with the natural world 
    a. NT
    b. Continued miracles
    c. Testimony of experiences/changed lives/relationships and
    d. Personal experience.

All of which can be explained without invoking a creature with impossible to prove characteristics, like I said all in the mind then.
Apart from wanting god to exist, do you have anything real you can offer ?