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

[SteveII]

There is no "continued problem with interpretation" concerning the nature of God. That only exists in your head. 


Go ahead, knock yourself out. 


So you ask a question about God, I answer. Then your reply is "well, you haven't proven God". You are a discussion genius. I can't match your skills. Unless you say something especially new or interesting, don't expect an answer in the future.

Yes very nice of you, but can you prove your definitions are true ?
I understand that you are frustrated by people asking you to justify you definitions and/or belief in god, I understand the questions are not new. I'm not asking in this instance for you to prove god, I already know from the past few months you cannot do that. I'm asking why you believe your definitions to be rational or true.  For instance when god is claimed to bless, curse, make crops grow, bring calamity, make rain and bring drought how are you meant to tell the difference between that and nature happening ?

There's the "can you prove" thing again. 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. Regarding the question of the existence of God, it has been proven to my satisfaction. 

When people push you on them you claim much is unknowable, and then claim they are being unreasonable in holding back belief in your assertions, for all your lengthy answers you do what many Christians do and fall back on an unknowable, mysterious, unprovable god, you are in effect saying 'god did it' that's what I already believe, and unless you can prove me otherwise then i will continue to believe that.

Since I have not made any of those arguments, none of that applies to me. To bring it up is a strawman. I have always said that there is nothing unreasonable about atheism. 

The reason why Christians are faced with a barrage of 'not new' questions is really simple, they have not given unbelievers sufficient reason to believe their faith in definitions of their god, or god himself resides outside their own mind. If you don't wish to reply to any of my posts further then that's fine, I will certainly continue to comment on yours

My intention was never to convince. I correct mischaracterizations, point out bad reasoning, and generally try to create a discussion so your side is better informed about the thing they feel so free to rail against but really only have about an inch deep understanding of. Of course this has had mixed results.