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

[SteveII]

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.

While some properties of God are unknowable, some are not. He has reveals a great deal about himself in both the OT and the NT. Here is a great list.  There is also a ton of things we can infer from known characteristics (the result of a process of systematic theology). 

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.

You continue to ignore the fact that I have a list of real life reasons to think the concept is true. So, I have not argued anything into existence. I believe historical testimony, other people's testimony whom I have personally encountered, and my own experiences. These are all real things. 

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.

'Unknowable' properties is not same meaning as 'incoherent'.

---

If the God of Christianity exists, he would be the explanation of all our reality -- it follows by definition.

But not much of an explanation because your god would be unknowable.

You have a real problem with reading comprehension. I never said God would be unknowable. There are a thousand things we know about God.