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!!!!


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.

No. You are asserting that a timeless, changeless, immaterial, supernatural being who has intelligence but no physical prescience, is capable of causing physical events and interacting with the physical world.  Boy, that’s quite a claim! I don’t know of anything in existence that isn’t subject to the laws of physics. You say there is one thing, and it’s God.

Nope. I am not making an argument (just picking one apart). So, I make no assertions. Mathilda originally said that God does not make sense because all intelligence is subject to the law of thermodynamics. My point was and is that if God exists, he is by definition an exception. There is no argument against God that contains the word 'thermodynamics'. 

So, when asked how such a being could be what you assert he is, and do what you assert he does, your explanation is: ‘Well, he’s god. We can’t understand. It’s unknowable.’  You want to invoke him as an explanation for things, and use his alleged existence in positive arguments, without actually explaining anything. That is arguing in a circle.  You’re using ‘god’s unknowable powers’ as a place-holder for, ‘I don’t know. He just is, and he just can.’

That might be a point if I was making an argument that contained those components. I know better. You are confusing an argument with try to explain what the meaning of a couple of words are, like 'supernatural'. By pointing out that Mathilda's claim is flawed, unknowable, and her conclusion is an argument from ignorance is not the same thing as making my own argument. Go ahead, show me where I made an argument with a premise and conclusion that I can't defend (definition of an assertion). 

When you posit god as the sole exception to the laws of physics without offering a coherent description of the mechanics of such an entity, you are essentially just asserting his existence, and expecting us to take that assertion seriously.  Why should we?

The definition of God guarantees an exception to the law of physics. I don't have to explain definitions. 

Consider this conversation:

You: When you throw things in the air they will fall down, because of gravity.

Me: No, not all things.

You: Okay, give me an example of a thing that doesn’t fall down when you throw it in the air.

Me:  A Flim Flam.

You:  What is a Flim Flam, and explain how it can violate gravity?

Me:  Well, a Flim Flam is supernatural, so there is really no way for us to comprehend how.  

I would imagine your response would be something along the lines of, “then why should I take seriously the claim that such a thing exists at all?

Well, for starters

1. "Throwing" is an activity involving matter.
2. "Air" actually is matter
3. "Gravity" would not have an effect on something supernatural

So, by definition alone, I can rule out your analogy. But it does serve to illustrate my complaint about Mathilda's comments. She demands that I defend definitions. I don't have to. She can't show that the concept of 'God' or 'supernatural' is problematic. She is stuck with the possibility that these are exceptions. I don't have to prove their existence to point out these are exceptions. She keeps demanding why? By definition.