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

[RoadRunner79]

What I mean, is that I don't see anyone on the opposing side, making the argument that you are attempting to refute.  And I'm glad that you think that snowflakes need a reason, for beginning to exist.   I agree.  And I'm sorry, but since I'm not making the argument that you are trying to refute, I don't really see the need to go into a number of things that cause a snowflake to form.

I did not say that they need a reason to begin to exist. That applies agency where there is none. Nor did I ever say that there was a single cause.

Religionists use such language because they ultimately want to convince everyone that there is a single god responsible for it all.

They do this because of their preference for binary, discrete thinking.

What I am trying to show is that things rarely, if ever happen because of a single 'cause', but because of a history of changes in the environment.

You're just trying to avoid the question so I'll make it easy for you:

I don't think that you are realizing, that for the most part I am agreeing with you.   I wasn't talking about reason as it some ultimate purpose or making any statements about going back to a single cause, but as I think that you are not listening very well, and trying to make assumptions that go further back, then what I was stating.

So your "Religionists use such language because " spiel seems like a bunch of hooey in this context


I don't see a problem, if after I agreed with you; that you still wanted to go through your snowflake example.  There may be others who you wished to convey the idea.   However for you to still try to say that I was avoiding the question and just the general tone of your post, make me think that you completely didn't comprehend what I was saying.