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

[Amarok]

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


Mystic bullcrap


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.

---

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.

Here here