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

[GrandizerII]

Something must justify the description regardless of whether you are describing its material, form, purpose, or origin.

Nope the fact it exists and is observable is more then justification

It exists eternally in the mind of God.

Mystic bullcrap

So ultimately, the objection "those are just descriptions" is a double edged sword for those who use it to dismiss the reality of forms and purposes. Matter is also 'just' a description. There is a relationship between what things are, their existence, and how we describe the existence of those things. The decision to call some of those descriptions real while asserting that others are not is completely arbitrary. You need to give me some reason why the abstracted conception of a thing's matter is any more real than the abstract conception of it's form.

1. It's no arbitrary

2. Your talking out your ass  they are just descriptions and the rest of this derp is apologist  gibberish . And quoting that deluded fraud Fesers will not help you with your lame apologist excuse making.

---

Human brains share lots of commonalities that lead to common observations and descriptions. You should accustom yourself to first resorting to what human psychology has to say about the human mind before jumping to unwarranted conclusions to do with the supernatural.


Pure ad hoc. There is no clear and conclusive evidence that an unembodied mind exists, or even can exist (in the objective sense of the term). I thought the whole point of arguments like the KCA (and the arguments by your beloved Aquinas) was that God can be extrapolated from this reality. Clearly, this has not been the case thus far.


It seems like Jenny is talking about objects as a whole (including both matter and form) while you are talking about the material cause only (in objecting to what she has to say). I believe what Jenny is arguing is that an object that can be observed in the physical world (or our common human perception of it) is in a different plane of existence than an object that can only be perceived in the mind. Normally, when we talk about existence when it comes to the matter of God, we are not discussing whether or not God exists in the abstract world of the human mind.

But Grand we need magic sky ju ju to justify descriptions of  reality  otherwise were just being arbitrary because Wooter and his gang of apologist "thinkers" say so.  

And yes it as silly as described above

And all this because God (in the theist's worldview) has to exist in the objective world. Hence, the post hoc reasoning and the "not good enough" responses. They can't be satisfied with sufficiently good naturalistic answers because what they're aiming for is to get us to be convinced of their version of "the perfect answer" (and this to make them feel validated and, therefore, more strengthened in the faith).

For example, when atheists say that the observations of things justify their descriptions (and the descriptions of the abstract associated with them), this is logically already a good enough answer. The theist, however, can't accept this because then this would mean their god isn't necessary after all. Hence, the "but what really justifies these descriptions?" even though it's not necessary to ask if they were to honestly think about it. It's the same kind of tactic with regards to human morality and intelligibility and rationality and all that. They can't be satisfied simply because they don't want to, not because of anything to do with the quality of the answers.