RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 9, 2018 at 9:11 am
(This post was last modified: March 9, 2018 at 9:12 am by I_am_not_mafia.)
Point is even if the light were supernatural (whatever supernatural means) and could definitely not be explained by natural means (as opposed to not having enough information to decide on a normal explanation), you still couldn't draw any conclusions from it about your god because there's no explanation!
In this case the light could just as easily be from Odin as your god.
Which brings us to the most common failing of critical thinking by wooists and religionists. A (current) lack of explanation does not mean that you are therefore correct in believing something else not supported by any evidence. It should not be used as an excuse to make shit up.
Scientists for example, go to great efforts to only state what can be supported by evidence.
In this case the light could just as easily be from Odin as your god.
Which brings us to the most common failing of critical thinking by wooists and religionists. A (current) lack of explanation does not mean that you are therefore correct in believing something else not supported by any evidence. It should not be used as an excuse to make shit up.
Scientists for example, go to great efforts to only state what can be supported by evidence.
