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

[LadyForCamus]

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...

First, I am not asking you to accept anything.

Correct.  Sloppy choice of words on my part.  I know that you, as an individual, aren’t trying to convince me.  

My opinion is that the proposition of god as an answer, should be wholly unsatisfying to the human mind.  The positing of an entity, the substance and mechanics of which, by its very definition are not explainable, isn’t an actual explanation.  An answer that generates exponentially more questions in its wake should be considered woefully inadequate. To me, such a proposition is a placeholder for the unknown, not an explanation of it.

I agree with you that descriptions like, “cannot be known”, and “does not require an explanation” are internally consistent with the definition of god. My point is, why would anyone accept a not-explainable thing as an answer?  I don’t understand this line of reasoning at all.

Second, you use the word 'demonstrate'. I have listed countless times reasons why people believe there is a God. These reasons 'demonstrate' the concept to be rationale. You cannot say any of them are false. So what you are actually saying is that these reasons (as you understand them--which is a very important point) haven't met your standards to believe. That's fine. But what you cannot say is that I have not demonstrated...period.

Oh, come now, Steve.  You know as well as I do that demonstrating a logical argument for the concept of an entity is not the same thing as demonstrating the entity itself.  You, yourself have said that you cannot logically argue things into existence.

There is nothing incoherent about the God of Christianity. If you think so, I will need a specific point to address.

What he’s made of, and how he functions are unknowable and not explainable.  Those are your words.

You can't get around it: If the God of Christianity exists, he would be the explanation of all our reality -- it follows by definition. There is no trick here. Any atheist philosopher would admit this. This puts you right back at the beginning of your question 1.

And, I think you are playing fast and loose with the definition of the word, “explanation”.