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

[The Grand Nudger]

Does it matter which one a person thinks is false..or even if a person doesn't think any are false?  Let's say someone granted you the entirety of the argument above. All of your work is still ahead of you....and it's -that- work you'll have to do before you start talking about inductive arguments giving good reason to think that some specific conclusion might be true.

[I_am_not_mafia]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Which number(s) do you think are false?

1.

The KCA fails at the first premise.

Name something that began to exist and tell us the exact moment this would have happened and the cause.

You might be able to manage it, I don't know. But for sure you can't say this about everything.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be more instructive to name two things that didn't "begin to exist".   

[I_am_not_mafia]

It would be more instructive to name two things that didn't "begin to exist".   

Energy and hammers.

---

Oh and morals and language.

[SteveII]

What is up with you? Why do you think God is not defined? There have been like 4,000,000 books written on the subject of God. Here's an idea: Google "defining the god of monotheism" and read a few things.

Give me a proper definition of what a god is then.

• What is it?
  
• What is it not?
  
• What is it made of?
  
• How can we determine whether something is a god or not a god?
  
• In other words, what observable characteristics does it have that sets it apart from non-gods?
  
• Where do you find it?
  

Take granite for example. The loose definition used to be coarse white or pink or grey crystalline rock. Pick up  rock, show it to someone and they would be able to tell whether or not it was granite, sandstone or their imagination. Further observations led to many more specific definitions for all the different forms of granite out there until everyone could agree on what type of granite they were looking at.

Absolutely no one has the same definition of what a god is. You cannot come up with a definition which everyone agrees upon. Not even the loosest characteristics. At most there are some very vague characteristics that many people will agree on, but not everyone.

This is because your god does not exist and is imagined. And in fact the very term god is something that is not meant to be properly defined otherwise it loses its meaning.

You are really really really hung up on trying to apply descriptions and properties of our universe to God. This is horrible logic. If God exists, he created the universe. Do you think he is made of the stuff that he create and constrained by the laws needed to hold that stuff together? That makes no sense at all. Not any.

Do you find it odd that there is no argument against the existence of God in the history of mankind that uses this reasoning? 

It does not matter if there were a million definitions of God. That does not mean there is not a correct one. In fact, if God exists, the very nature of God entails that we cannot comprehend very much--so the correct description is actually unknowable by us. Really, how can we truly comprehend omnipotence and omniscience and describe it accurately? If you think this is an argument against God, that is simple an argument from ignorance. 
BTW, your last paragraph starts with a claim to knowledge. This is why I laugh at the argument that "atheists just have a lack of belief". That's nonsense in 99 out of 100 cases.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It does not matter if there were a million definitions of God. That does not mean there is not a correct one. In fact, if God exists, the very nature of God entails that we cannot comprehend very much--so the correct description is actually unknowable by us. Really, how can we truly comprehend omnipotence and omniscience and describe it accurately? 

How can something that we cannot define and is inherently unknowable by us be the best explanation of anything then?

BTW, your last paragraph starts with a claim to knowledge. This is why I laugh at the argument that "atheists just have a lack of belief". That's nonsense in 99 out of 100 cases.

Look at what I put for religious views near my avatar. Gnostic atheist. I claim to know that your god does not exist. Yes most atheists do lack belief in a god, that's why they are called agnostic atheists. And I think that's a worthy position to hold. I personally feel confident enough to state that I actually believe that there is no such thing as a god and can back it up as well. As I am doing in this thread for example.

[SteveII]

It does not matter if there were a million definitions of God. That does not mean there is not a correct one. In fact, if God exists, the very nature of God entails that we cannot comprehend very much--so the correct description is actually unknowable by us. Really, how can we truly comprehend omnipotence and omniscience and describe it accurately? 

How can something that we cannot define and is inherently unknowable by us be the best explanation of anything then?

I didn't say we couldn't define God. We can't fully define God. That is a big difference. We get information from 

1. Direct revelation (the OT, NT, etc.)
2. Systematic theology (if we know this and this, this is true). 
3. Natural theology (inductive and deductive reasoning)
4. Personal experience
5. Experiences of others

BTW, your last paragraph starts with a claim to knowledge. This is why I laugh at the argument that "atheists just have a lack of belief". That's nonsense in 99 out of 100 cases.

Look at what I put for religious views near my avatar. Gnostic atheist. I claim to know that your god does not exist. Yes most atheists do lack belief in a god, that's why they are called agnostic atheists. And I think that's a worthy position to hold. I personally feel confident enough to state that I actually believe that there is no such thing as a god and can back it up as well. As I am doing in this thread for example.

Your confidence is misplaced because you don't have a single argument that I have heard that didn't have holes large enough to drive a truck through. Very much related to this, it is very obvious you do not have a good grasp on what Christians believe and why. So it is puzzling to me how you have a high level of confidence that something is false when you don't even know what it is that is false. 

I understand you won't take my word for it AND there seems to be some kind of atheist code here that prevents criticism of other atheists, you should find an atheist who is good at philosophy and bounce these things off of them.

[Minimalist]

you should find an atheist who is good at philosophy and bounce these things off of them.

He's too busy making fries at McDonalds.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It would be more instructive to name two things that didn't "begin to exist".   

Mountains and puddles.

---

How can something that we cannot define and is inherently unknowable by us be the best explanation of anything then?

I didn't say we couldn't define God. We can't fully define God.

I am saying that no one can define what a god is and you have failed to provide a definition. Or even attempted to provide one.

You have absolutely no definition that could distinguish between something is a god and what you are imagining for example:

We get information from 

1. Direct revelation (the OT, NT, etc.)
2. Systematic theology (if we know this and this, this is true). 
3. Natural theology (inductive and deductive reasoning)
4. Personal experience
5. Experiences of others

1. Imagined by (crappy) authors of fiction.
2. Imagined by theologists.
3. Imagined by theologists.
4. Imagined by yourself.
5. Imagined by others.

[SteveII]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Which number(s) do you think are false?

1.

The KCA fails at the first premise.

Name something that began to exist and tell us the exact moment this would have happened and the cause.

You might be able to manage it, I don't know. But for sure you can't say this about everything.

Item (cause)
Most of the elements/compounds that make up my keyboard began to exist (stars, pressure, other chemical reactions)
This post (me, electricity, my computer components, the internet and all the hardware necessary to maintain that connection)
I began to exist. (parents, biological processes)
My office began to exist (a builder, some supplies)
Our sun began to exist (dense gasses and whatnot)
Our galaxy began to exist (more of the same)

Now give me examples of things that don't have causes. 

Lest you think you can play around, let's use the same definition of the word:

cause
kôz/
noun

1. 1.
   a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.