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

[SteveII]

No.

Okay, good then, because such an assertion would be difficult to explain and almost impossible to demonstrate.  So I’ll remember going forward, that it is NOT your position that god is intelligent.

That is not the same thing (and you should be able to discern that). Because I didn't assert it in this discussion does not mean that I think that God is not intelligent. I'm trying not to assert OR argue anything. Mathilda's argument is so bad by itself that I shouldn't need even make a counter argument. 

It does not have to come to this every time we discuss the concept of God. Actually, it is a rather unsophisticated (I'm being charitable) to demand proof all the end of every sentence about God.

It’s rather obvious here that you didn’t answer my question.  I’ll ask again:

Why should we take seriously the positing of an entity that, by definition, requires no explanation for its alleged attributes and powers, and cannot be demonstrated to exist? 

But as you know, I can give a list of common reasons and arguments why it is reasonable to believe God exists.

No, none that aren’t either fatally, logically flawed, or reliant upon unsound premises. 

A 'flim falm' is not an analogy because it does not have a list of reason nor are there billions who would give personal experience testimony to its existence.

That you have a bunch of other people who believe in your inexplicable, indemonstrable entity, doesn’t change the fact that it IS inexplicable and indemonstrable, and as such, possesses no explanatory power with regard to anything in the real world.  And, is essentially indistinguishable from imagination.[/quote]

Are we moving on? Do you want positive arguments for God? You have seen my list: pick one (preferably in a new thread--this one has a stupid title). A reminder: this is not an argument--it is a list of reasons/arguments. 

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

I will predict the outcome of any discussion right now. I will successfully defend them because there are not logical flaws in them. So you will eventually just declare "well...it is not compelling." I will state that it is a cumulative case. You will say that it is not proof. I will post this: 

What exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

• Scientific proof
  
• Historical proof
  
• Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
  
• Proof resulting from personal experience
  

There also also different thresholds of proof:

• Possible
  
• More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
  
• Beyond reasonable doubt
  
• Absolute certainty
  

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some).

In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. 

Look at that. I saved us a lot of time if you just want to fast forward to the end and admit that belief in God is not your thing, but it is not irrational.