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

[GrandizerII]

1. That's one way to define God, certainly not the only way.  
2. Yep.
3. If the Creator of the Universe exists, the Creator of the universe is the most likely explanation for the universe. No need to invoke Occam, it's a tautology.
4. If 1. correctly defines God and 3. is true, that does follow.
5. Yep.
6. Uh huh.

That was sort of interesting. Let's try this:

1. If God doesn't exist or is in some sense material.
2. The universe is material and not entirely illusory or made of spirit thoughts or some such.
3. If God doesn't exist or is in some sense material, the universe had a material cause.
4. If God doesn't exist or is in some sense material, you don't even need a 4.
5. Creation is causation.
6. Therefore, if God doesn't exist or is material, no reason to suppose the immaterial has any affect at all on the material

Basically, your argument is just asserting that God is immaterial and created the universe, broken into pieces. I'm pretty sure 'show your work' was meant to evoke an attempt to explain how an immaterial God would affect a material universe. We all already know that you think God does that, your argument was completely lacking in new information.

Actually, I did not assert anything at all. My number 3 is pretty tight reasoning. The rest is definitions. 

Regarding the question about how God did it, that is a nonsense question. How could we understand the process of creating a universe from nothing, by a being we can only just begin to fathom, from a point of view within the universe we barely understand? It is an unknowable question and asking it makes no point whatsoever in a discussion.  

By the way, your syllogism is lacking because you have failed to rule out all immaterial objects. You assumed, for your argument, that only one such possibility did not exist. Your number 6 does not follow from the premises--it is an assertion. There may be other reasons or I could argue that you would never know of a immaterial cause because by definition, immaterial is undetectable. In other words, for you to make a successful argument, you would have to prove that there was no such thing as the immaterial. Something you can't do.

Before your position can even be taken seriously, you need to be clear on what you mean by "immaterial", distinguishing it from (1) "material", (2) "abstract", and (3) "non-existent". You're just arguing "mumbo jumbo" at this point.