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

[possibletarian]

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.

Well yes I've seen your cut and paste many times as unconvincing as it is, however what I'm asking in this instance is do you have any reason to believe your definitions are true, in other words are they more than simply in your mind ?  What you call mischaracterisations are simply you not really explaining what you mean, you seem to be all over the place as others have noted on this thread, lets see if we can have a conversation without it becoming so complex that it hides the simplicity of the question.

For instance
1) Ability to fly
2) Ability to see through things (expect lead)
3) As tough as steel
4) Super strong
5) believes in justice (and the American way of course)

These are all definitions of superman, and if someone asked me for a definition of superman, i could quote these. I do not however believe superman exists mostly because the definitions themselves are unbelievable  (and I know he's a comic character).  
So when someone talks about Timeless, changeless,  etc.... I get the same oozy unrealistic feeling in my stomach.

Having said that, lets try and put some clarity into the conversation.

Lets start with number one on your list, what scientific proofs of god/s and your definitions do you have ?
Lets start at the threshold of more likely than not, so in other words it is reasonable to believe it's true rather than not.