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

[SteveII]

The PSR is a universally accepted concept within our universe. 

No, that's not actually true.  In addition, there are multiple PSRs depending upon specifically what one does or does not want to exempt from the rule.  But I'm used to your penchant for exaggeration by now, so I'll just let that slide.

What I do find troubling is that you are justifying "being comes only from being" via ex nihilo nihil fit, as that seems to be an axiom rather than a justified truth, so asserting its complement ("being only comes from being") appears to be nothing more than begging the question.  I'd like to see the statement justified, not simply assumed.  You implied that you could provide examples from "reality."  That at least would provide you with the basis of an inductive argument, but given your last reply, it doesn't seem that you are able to do that.  Is ex nihilo nihil fit an a priori truth?  I don't think it is.  Therefore I'd appeal to Hitchens' razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well, Spinoza thought it was an axiom (Axiom 7). In fact, I read in some places he says it is a necessary truth. 

In a brief explanatory note to this axiom, Spinoza adds:

Since existing is something positive, we cannot say that it has nothing as its cause (by Axiom 7). Therefore, we must assign some positive cause, or reason, why [a thing] exists—either an external one, i.e., one outside the thing itself, or an internal one, one comprehended in the nature and definition of the existing thing itself. (Geb. I/158/4–9)[3]

Axiom 7, to which Spinoza appeals in the explanation, is a variant of the “ex nihilo, nihil fit” (“from nothing, nothing comes”) principle, and stipulates that an existing thing and its perfections (or qualities) cannot have nothing or a non-existing thing as their cause. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

In all of our observations, something has never come from nothing. Everything as always come from something. Is that enough evidence for the principle: being comes from being?

As far as a priori, perhaps. Robert Koons came up with something like this: 

Start with the observation that once we admit that some contingent states of affairs have no explanations, a completely new sceptical scenario becomes possible: No demon is deceiving you, but your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all, with no prior causes.

Moreover,objective probabilities are tied to laws of nature or objective tendencies, and so if an objective probability attaches to some contingent fact, then that situation can be given an explanation in terms of laws of nature or objective tendencies.  Hence, if the PSR is false of some contingent fact, no objective probability attaches to the fact. 

Thus we cannot even say that violations of the PSR are improbable if the PSR is false. Consequently, someone who does not affirm the PSR cannot say that the sceptical scenario is objectively improbable.  It may be taken to follow from this that if the PSR were false or maybe even not known a priori, we wouldn’t know any empirical truths.  But we do know empirical truths.  Hence,the PSR is true, and maybe even known a priori.

from Blackwells Companion to Natural Theology. I don't have the exact reference since I had this chapter in Evernote. I can get it upon request.

---

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. 


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. 


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.

Fine tuning argument.