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

[GrandizerII]

---

And yet, in the B-theory sense of time, "begins to exist" is different from "begins to exist" in the A-theory sense of time. Under the B-theory of time, it is possible for the universe to have a beginning to its existence without ever coming into being. Even WLC himself acknowledges this when he uses the analogy of a ruler to illustrate the point. Just because the ruler has a starting unit mark doesn't mean the ruler comes into being the moment the first unit is marked.

So keep this in mind if you still wish to avoid equivocating.

And the way Steve has defined "begins to exist", even your god itself had to have had a beginning to its existence.

So there are problems with the KCA, lots of problems, and neither you nor Steve seem ready to address them in an effective manner.


So you're not comfortable with numbers. Big deal. People need not cater to your weaknesses and insecurities in order to point out the flaws in an argument.


Shall I remind you it's not atheists, but theists, arguing that things can come from literal "nothing" (in the philosophical sense). You tell me what the limits of "nothing" are. I'm all too willing to play by the rules of human intuition in addressing the argument, yet you theists seem to be ok with the prospect of things arising without material cause, which itself is unintuitive. So what's the point of arguing from intuition for premise 1 when you are ok with being selective of which intuitive ideas to assert as always true and which to dismiss as not always true? Really, it's not intuition that is the main mover (pun intended) behind your defense of premise 1. It's the overall desperate need to have your god exist that is driving you to defend premise 1 (and the whole argument).

---

You seem to be all over the place here, taking on any and every argument which may suite your purpose.   You do not seem to be making a systematic or coherent case for any particular position (even taking on contradictory positions).  Whether it's sophism or just an aversion to anything which may point to God, you don't seem to be putting forth a rational position, nor making a case against anything I said.

Translation: "I don't like having my favorite argument dismantled from various angles, so I am going to undermine the character of the person dismantling my beloved argument because I can't be bothered addressing his counter-arguments. Hopefully, I come off as smart regardless in the eyes of people reading our exchanges, because that's really what I'm aiming for here."

I would like to point out the following though;

So you're not comfortable with numbers. Big deal. People need not cater to your weaknesses and insecurities in order to point out the flaws in an argument.

Now I gave the reason why I didn't think that the discussion of how probabilities multiplied was not appropriate (and it had nothing to do with what you made up here).   This is either just blatant intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps poor reading comprehension at best.

Yeah, you tell yourself that. Because we all know how comfortable you are with addressing the maths (judging from recent posting history).