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

[I_am_not_mafia]

That video was crap . Just more apologist flim flam .

Every time I read the words 'flim flam' it makes me think of a soft flan cake with a cheesy topping.

[vulcanlogician]

...flan...

[vulcanlogician]

Well, Spinoza thought it was an axiom (Axiom 7). In fact, I read in some places he says it is a necessary truth. 

In a brief explanatory note to this axiom, Spinoza adds:

Since existing is something positive, we cannot say that it has nothing as its cause (by Axiom 7). Therefore, we must assign some positive cause, or reason, why [a thing] exists—either an external one, i.e., one outside the thing itself, or an internal one, one comprehended in the nature and definition of the existing thing itself. (Geb. I/158/4–9)[3]

Axiom 7, to which Spinoza appeals in the explanation, is a variant of the “ex nihilo, nihil fit” (“from nothing, nothing comes”) principle, and stipulates that an existing thing and its perfections (or qualities) cannot have nothing or a non-existing thing as their cause. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

In all of our observations, something has never come from nothing. Everything as always come from something. Is that enough evidence for the principle: being comes from being?

I don't think Spinoza is who you want to consult for support, Steve. The same SEP article you quote says:

Spinoza allows for one unique item to be without a cause. In §70 of this treatise, Spinoza argues:

[T]hat Thought is also called true which involves objectively the essence of some principle that does not have a cause, and is known through itself and in itself. (II/26/33–4. Our emphasis)

That makes sense doesn't it. "One unique item" is without cause. But that is a rather unique an mysterious item that doesn't have a cause isn't it? We mortals could hardly fathom such a thing. The KCA places a god in the fog of our bewilderment. That's the whole problem with premise 4.

"To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful."

Where does one gather that this uncaused cause must have all these properties? Show me the logic. I simply don't see it.

I like Spinoza's version way better: "does not have a cause, and is known through itself and in itself." That's all. And, yes, Spinoza does call this principle God, but it isn't any God that theists talk about.

1. Spinoza's God is not personal. It does not care about the affairs of mankind. It isn't self-aware of itself in the sense that we are. It doesn't care about your life or anyone else's.
2. It is not a creator. It is "nature being nature." It is itself all that is. It did not deliberately create the cosmos. God just "happened" and we are all part of it.
3. As for beginingless, I cannot say. I'd have to look it up.
4. Spinoza's God is not changeless. It changes.
5. Spinoza's God is not immaterial. In fact, Spinoza's God literally is all material. It's not just material. It is infinite and encompasses all things whether material or immaterial. But to Spinoza, the coffee cup in your hand is God. So is every one of your pubic hairs.
6. Timeless I don't know. What does timeless even mean in this context? Put this one down for a maybe.
7. Spinoza's God is not spaceless. It is space and everything within it. And anything that might exist outside spacial dimensions is also God.
8. I'll give you enormously powerful again because Spinoza's God is all power everywhere. Since it actually is all power, it follows that "enormously powerful" is an appropriate descriptor.

So out of 8 qualities, 2 might match up to Spinoza's conception. Like I said, Spinoza doesn't really help your case. In fact, he obliterates premise 4 by postulating an entity with virtually none of the qualities listed in it.

Where did this list of properties in premise 4 come from? Where are they demonstrated to be necessary in the argument? You see my problem. Give me some logic.

[Mister Agenda]

I wonder what the defeaters are to my claim that an invisible leprechaun keeps my car repairs more reasonable that they would be otherwise? If no one can offer a defeater, what does that imply about my claim?

[possibletarian]

I wonder what the defeaters are to my claim that an invisible leprechaun keeps my car repairs more reasonable that they would be otherwise? If no one can offer a defeater, what does that imply about my claim?

Don't listen to sceptic fools, It is clearly 100% proof that leprechauns keep your car bills reasonable. Anyone who tells you otherwise is denying the truth in their hearts because of pride and sin.

[GrandizerII]

I wonder what the defeaters are to my claim that an invisible leprechaun keeps my car repairs more reasonable that they would be otherwise? If no one can offer a defeater, what does that imply about my claim?

They're ... um ... hmm, let me think? I know! They're not "spaceless" ... yeah ... that's it.

Oh, wait, they're invisible. Dang it!

[I_am_not_mafia]

I wonder what the defeaters are to my claim that an invisible leprechaun keeps my car repairs more reasonable that they would be otherwise? If no one can offer a defeater, what does that imply about my claim?

Is the car a Ford?

[Divinity]

Is the car a Ford?

If it is, then it's truly impressive.  Because those are the kinds of cars you have to Fix or Repair Daily.

[LadyForCamus]

You’re wandering a bit.

The claim is that god is the personal creator of the universe as we know it.  If god is real, he is the best explanation for the universe’s existence.  

When examining a possible explanation for a particular phenomenon (in this case, god as the cause of the universe), most rational people would think it important to know a few key specifics about this proposed explanation:
 
1. What is god made of?
2. By what mechanisms did he accomplish this?
3. How can we differentiate between god, and things that are not god?
4. What mechanisms underpin this timeless, changeless, spaceless state?

Your answers to this line of questioning so far have been, ‘category error,’ and ‘not knowable’.  

That is some “explanation”, Steve.  Further, I don’t understand how you can call the definition of god as, “not needing an explanation”, any kind of definition at all.  God is what, then?   I’ll-defined by definition?  Why would any rational person accept a theory that is unexplainable by definition, as an explanation for real phenomena?

Our definition of God is incomplete. Given the subject matter, I would say that is to be expected.

Yes.

That you want to draw some conclusion about that is a misguided.

Not at all. Your definition of god barely constitutes a definition at all, and your explanation of his abilities are nothing more than surface level assertions that, by your own admittance, can never be understood. A non-answer that raises further unanswerable questions is no kind of reasonable answer at all.  

You cannot develop any logical problems from this.

The problem is your unjustified gnosticism.

Actually, not even an inconvenience to the Christian.

Lol, that’s for sure!  “We can’t know; it’s supernatural” is extraordinarily convenient for your position.  So much that it almost feels contrived...😇

What you have is your belief that the Bible is true, and personal experience.  If that’s enough for you, fine.  But you must be able to see how this is not even close to enough for many of us here.

”God-did-it because the Bible says so”, as the explanation for existence is never going to be enough for me.

God did it because we believe the people who testify to the events.

Right. The Bible.

The way you think it works is circular reasoning.

You said the exact same thing I just said, but with more words.  And yes, I would agree that is circular reasoning. 😏

[possibletarian]

I wonder what the defeaters are to my claim that an invisible leprechaun keeps my car repairs more reasonable that they would be otherwise? If no one can offer a defeater, what does that imply about my claim?

Is the car a Ford?

While Fords are clearly Telepathic it's irrational to assume they also have pixies without evidence.