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

[GrandizerII]

It may be noted, that Grandizers theory is testable.  If I am trying to avoid discussion, then all one would have to do, is present questions or arguments concerning either to what I had said or present an case for what you think is more compelling.  If he is correct, and I want to avoid logical and coherent objections, then it would follow that I would continue to do so.  I will note , that mere disagreement is not avoidance.  If however I don't have issue with interacting with other ideas, then it would seem that the seemingly self serving hypothesis  would be false.

You couldn't handle logical and coherent objections posted just a page back, and you won't address them anytime soon.

I do avoid some topics.  I try to avoid topics that are largely subjective or a matter of opinion.  I may avoid a topic, because I don't think the person will contribute anything of value or has a history of just attacking the person or name calling; rather than thoughtful discussion.  However this is a topic I like.

And yet, you avoid addressing the objections I've presented to you specifically because you just don't know how to effectively refute them. This is why you're resorting now to the tactics that you usually resort to when you can't address the logic.

By a show of hands, if I said that an elephant suddenly appeared in my back yard (like poof)  without reason.  How many would consider that plausible?

No one except naive theists apparently. After all, you believe the whole fucking universe popped out of literal "nothingness". At most, atheists argue that particles appear to emerge a-causally from some quantum vacuum, but then again, the vacuum is not the same as the philosophical conception of "nothingness". And as for reason, your god apparently exists without reason.