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

[SteveII]

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.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is by definition rationale (from my reasoning listed above). The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

(added strikethrough)

The first three items (though I personally have problems with them) can in fact serve as a rational basis for belief. But the stricken items under number 4 represent arguments from ignorance-- they represent "god of the gaps" reasoning.

Before we understood the water cycle: God was the best explanation for what made the rain fall/weather patterns.
Before we understood gravity: God was the best explanation for what supported celestial bodies and kept them from falling.
Before we understood medicine: God was the best explanation for disease and illness.

For a and e.... I don't think this represents god of the gaps reasoning, but still, nothing makes God the best explanation there either. It is shaky logic to consider god the best explanation. (We've discussed the problems with those elsewhere, anyway.)

But b, c, and, d are right out. In no way is it rational for a theist to believe based on those.

Not God of the Gaps at all.

b. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a God-of-the-gaps argument. It is a sound deductive piece of reasoning
c. The Fine Tuning argument is a good argument in a cumulative case. Actually I have heard Sam Harris said it's the best argument that Christian philosophers make. It is not god-of-the-gaps because it uses probability and science to show the inexplicable nature of our universe. 
d. Using a pretty sophisticated argument, J. P. Moreland shows how naturalism cannot account for the epiphenomenon of consciousness, and makes an argument for a non-naturalistic, personal explanation. 

I can debate any of these separately. Let me know when and where.

---

I offered a list of different ways of discovering that God exists. To which you replied "All of which can be explained...". Even if you had a theory for each of them, those theories are your opinion. You cannot prove one counter-argument to any of the above--not one. 

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

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.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is by definition rationale (from my reasoning listed above). The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

Oh I believe that you believe them I've already said that, and that you believe the explanation satisfactory.  I don't think anyone here has a problem with accepting that you believe.

Of course you can't prove a counter arguments to things which only exist in peoples minds,again I don't have to,  I say if you can prove any of the above then please do so, it's been an open invitation as long as you have been on this forum, of that I'm sure.  At the very best you are offering an opinion, none of which can be considered reasonable proof.

As for it meeting you personal threshold of proof, that's fine at least for you, but if you out to convince others then i would suggest it requires considerably more convincing proof if indeed inference can even be called proof.  You are a perfect example of what this thread set out to accomplish, that faith statements about timeless, space-less, immaterial, spiritual beings can not be unproven no matter how whacky, stupid or silly they are.

And if the threshold for you believing is simply that no one can disprove what you believe then that equally justifies anyone's belief in any unprovable/non falsifiable claim.

I have never set out here at AF to convince anyone. I have never said that the atheist position is even unreasonable. All I do is defend against stupid reasoning, mischaracterizations,  strawmen, and make a general attempt to show the Christian belief is rational and defensible (and NOT just opinion).  I adjust my stances slightly as I learn things. I improve my discussion and critical thinking skills along the way.

---

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

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.

But if God can't be defined then how can it be the best explanation for anything?

What is up with you? Why do you think God is not defined? There have been like 4,000,000 books written on the subject of God. Here's an idea: Google "defining the god of monotheism" and read a few things.