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

[LadyForCamus]

@steve

I just want you to answer this one question, and then I’ll let you have the last word here.  You and Mathilda have a lot going on.

Why should I 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?

You are right that by definition God has no explanation. But your second phrase does not follow from the first part (or any other logic). In other words, there is nothing in the definition of God that even suggests that his existence cannot be demonstrated. For example, why couldn't God demonstrate his existence by coming to earth and telling everyone? 

Regarding your question "why should I take seriously...?" even if you don't believe, you should understand the concept that a good part of the world believes.

A clarification here because I realize my wording was unclear.  What I meant was, by definition, god needs no explanation.  Additionally, he cannot be demonstrated to exist.  

God could certainly demonstrate his existence by coming to earth and telling everyone.  I’m not sure why he doesn’t do it right now as I’m typing this. I’m not sure why he would do it just the one time, and then expect every human on earth going forward to simply accept the Bible at its word.  The Bible is not a demonstration of god.  It’s a claim about a god.  If god could be demonstrated to exist, we’d ALL be theists.

So, you’re asking me to rationally accept a thing that:

 1. cannot be demonstrated and...

2.  cannot be coherently explained

...as the explanation for all of reality?

Why would anyone do that?!