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

[SteveII]

Wait a minute. All this started when you thought you had a clever argument that God was not thermodynamically possible.

Right, so let's recap the conversation. I ask

"Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics."

You respond:

"Supernatural intelligence.

By definition, it is not subject to natural laws. "

So I ask:

"Provide one example of something existing that is also supernatural"

You response is:

"Now to salvage your part of the discussion, you take the typical atheist tack of "well...you don't have any evidence of God anyway...so there." "

So to summarise, like all theists, you are using supernatural as an excuse not to explain anything. It's so typical. The argument goes God is supernatural and therefore needs no explanation about how it could possibly exist or do anything. It just gives you an excuse to imagine any old shit because hey, it's supernatural therefore you can't argue that it is implausible or does not exist even though supernatural by definition means that it does not exist in nature. Circular logic indeed.

So when I asked for one example of intelligence not subject to the laws of thermodynamics, you failed to do so and instead responded with an example that you cannot show exists, and which by definition of being supernatural cannot exist. And then when I try to ask you for an example of anything that is supernatural you call me disingenuous..

Or to put it even more succinctly, I ask for an example of something. You provide an example of your god and criticise me for saying that there is no evidence that your god exists.

So having failed to answer the original question, I shall pose it again.

Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

GOD. 

Why can't you see that all you are doing is insisting that I prove the existence of God. That is all you are doing!!!!


Your form of the argument is a just an argument from ignorance. You are asserting that intelligence is subject to the laws of thermodynamics because I can't prove otherwise. You have no other reasons for thinking so. This is a fallacious argument and your conclusion is meaningless. 

Your complaint about me using "supernatural" as an excuse is silly as well. I had to bring it up because of your complete lack of understanding of what you are arguing against. Your arguments do not make sense because you are completely ignoring properties that are definitionally attached to things like 'God' and the 'supernatural'. If you ignore the definitions and then use the word, you are talking nonsense OR if I use the word and you don't except the definition, you have no argument.

---

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.

im·ma·te·ri·al
ˌi(m)məˈtirēəl/
adjective

1. 2.
   PHILOSOPHY
   spiritual, rather than physical.
   "we have immaterial souls"
   synonyms:
   intangible, incorporeal, bodiless, disembodied, impalpable, ethereal, insubstantial, metaphysical; More
   

The opposite of 'material'.
Nothing to do with 'abstract'.
Nothing to do with 'non-existent'.