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

[SteveII]

Bullshit

Here was her original statement:
"Conversely an eternal god is thermodynamically implausible for two reasons. First it violates the second law of thermodynamics because entropy can never decrease in an isolated system and no process is 100% efficient. Secondly, the formation of intelligence is best explained as a thermodynamic process". https://atheistforums.org/post-1712719.html#pid1712719

Go ahead, defend that. OR tell her to drop this. Ball is in your court.

I just did.  Are you deaf?  Exactly how is this a response to what I said?  Her latter statement is a clear example of an inductive argument.  The key word here is "implausible," which, despite your earlier misrepresentation of the definition of the word in an argument with me has "improbable" as one of its definitions.  

What are you talking about?!? Your:

 "All examples of intelligence we have are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, therefore we are justified in believing that all cases of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics." 

is not what she was arguing. See above RED. 

Since every observation we have ever made is within the universe and the universe is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, your statement is logically equivalent to: "the universe is subject to the laws of thermodynamics". What on earth information does that give us or what conclusion does that premise work toward. 

No argument against the existence of God that had the word 'thermodynamic' in it will ever make sense. It is a category error.

---

Here was her original statement:
"Conversely an eternal god is thermodynamically implausible for two reasons. First it violates the second law of thermodynamics because entropy can never decrease in an isolated system and no process is 100% efficient. Secondly, the formation of intelligence is best explained as a thermodynamic process". https://atheistforums.org/post-1712719.html#pid1712719

Go ahead, defend that. OR tell her to drop this. Ball is in your court.

Yet you haven't provided a single way of refuting that statement. All you have done is come up with circular logic along the lines of:

"I postulate that X exists which I define as something as something contradicting your statement, but I am going to complain when you ask for evidence that X exists or even reason to believe that it exists."

Garbage in garbage out.

Your whole argument relies on the existence of X and without it your whole argument falls apart.

So again, I ask you to provide one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Again, you are unable to admit that you are unable to.

I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT! I cannot be arguing in a circle BECAUSE I HAVE NOT MADE AN ARGUMENT. Mentioning God's definition is NOT AN ARGUMENT.  Mentioning the definition of supernatural is not an argument. Can I be clearer? 

Every one of my points have been centered around definitions AND pointing out that your whole argument is the same as demanding that I prove the existence of God.  It has nothing at all to do with thermodynamics! You could have said "give me one example of advanced consciousness that isn't human". None of these types of arguments make any headway against the question of whether there is a God or not. Every one of them is constructed to demand that I prove you wrong. 

Your original statement above that started all this is huge category error. You cannot use natural laws to prove or disprove God's existence because by the very definition of God, they are meaningless to the question. I don't know how to say this any clearer.