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

[LadyForCamus]

As to Odin, I didn't have much interest, so I didn't become involved in the thread, until thread creep made it into something else.  Now if I was making comments and claims against Odin, things would be different.

Lol, who is the thread creep?

---

[quote='possibletarian' pid='1724193' dateline='1522155585']They all could/probably do if in fact the supernatural exists. However, that is not the argument. The point is we can see that even abstract concepts and objects that are not bound by the physical laws of the universe require a causal principle. This fact further supports the idea that a causal principle is an objective feature of all reality and therefore cannot be separated from the concept of existence. Tell me, can you conceive of a reality that has no governing causal principle? There would be no structure to even hold anything material together nor any duration/enduring of anything.[i]

This is simply an argument from personal incredulity.

There would be no possibility of even thinking (defined as a process of ordered thoughts).

Then how does god do it?

So, if we can't conceive of such a reality, why would we deny the premise "anything that begins to exist has a cause" is a lot more likely true than not?

There was a time in my life when I couldn’t conceive of evolution, but to say, ‘therefore it can’t be true’ is again, an argument from personal incredulity.

---

Again if you're going to call the man a liar your going to have to provide proof other than insinuations because his claims are too fantastical for you to believe.

And I find interesting that the only source you're using is one with a clear agenda and zero objectivity.

Would you be convinced if I started posting info from a flat earth website?

So, this is really interesting, and relevant to the OP.

On the one hand, you accept the extraordinary testimony of a priest that a light is god, and you accept the extraordinary testimony of a miraculous healing, but you do not accept mundane testimony that a man was seen faking his crutches, and you do not accept Upshaw’s own testimony that he hadn’t been bed or wheelchair bound for twenty years, which would make Branham a liar.  So, testimony is sufficient evidence only when it confirms your pre-conclusions?  Got it.