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

[SteveII]

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!!!!

No, I am asking for one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Something that actually exists, not something made up and given the excuse of being 'supernatural'.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? 

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. 

Maybe you should read up about arguments from ignorance (if you do not have problems with reading comprehension that is).

I am stating that all known examples of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

You are the one making the claim that intelligence does not need to be subject to the laws of thermodynamics (by hand waving and mumbling 'supernatural') ... yet you are not explaining how or why and then accusing me of being ignorant. Even though you are the one making the claim and refusing to back it up with any reasoning or evidence.

Yet because I can't fill in the gaps for your half arsed explanations relying on equivocation, I am the ignorant one apparently.

This is real simple. God, by definition, would be an exception to your claim that "all known examples of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics." You think that I have to prove God or your statement is true. That IS EXACTLY equivalent to what I said above: "...all you are doing is insisting that I prove the existence of God. That is all you are doing!!!!"

Thinking that your statement is true unless I prove it wrong is very much the definition of an argument from ignorance. 

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
   
   
2. false
   
   
3. unknown between true or false
   
   
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance