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

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Your assertion is that god is intelligent. So yes, there is an assertion AND a contradiction here. You are assigning a physical property to a non-physical entity. If god, by definition, is supernatural and immaterial, how can he possess a quality (intelligence) that is rooted in the physical, material processes of a physical, material brain, within a physical, material universe? I’m simply asking you to explain how; to support your assertion. The answer you gave was, ‘because he’s god.’  That’s a non-answer. It elucidates nothing.

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).

Are you not at least making an assertion that god is intelligent?

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

Sure.  So, why should we take seriously the positing of an entity that, by definition, requires no explanation for its alleged attributes and powers, if it can’t even be demonstrated to exist?

Consider this conversation:  [snipped for brevity]

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.

The analogous point in my example is that I am asserting a thing exists, and following up by saying that the thing I allege exists requires no explanation, and cannot be understood.  On those terms, should anyone take seriously my claim that a Flim Flam exists at all?