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.

[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 

[RoadRunner79]

It also supports vacuum fluctuations as a cause of the universe.

Sure, or the FSM or anything else for that matter. KCA is another "God of the Gaps" and one can inject whatever one wants into it. That is why it is utterly useless. Well, that and the premises are faulty. Oh, and that the apologists chuck in extra premises because reasons and chuck out Occam because reasons.

As I agreed previously, the KCA isn't about any specific tradition or account of God.  I think that you are completely missing the point what it is saying.  It is not appealing to "gaps" and just inserting God into them.  And if the premises are faulty, you are welcome to show where.  The rest of you post, makes me think that you are just trolling, but if you would like to discuss anything in more detail, or understand and accurately represent what you are criticizing, then you will need to be more specific.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

You've provided no testimony / proof stating that Upshaw has been faking a disability for 66 years.

That’s clearly not what I said.  Let’s try this again.  Upshaw is quoted as saying he hasn’t been bed/wheelchair bound in twenty years, which directly contradicts the picture Branham painted of him for the purposes of his ‘healing’ services:

In a 1915 article in the Shreveport Times, Upshaw claims that his bedridden state lasted only seven years. In fact, he claimed that it had been twenty years prior when he used a wheelchair.

"The name of 'Earnest Willie' was given me when I was on bed for seven years dictating letters for the papers, and it stayed by me for a while nearly twenty years ago when I used to lecture from a rolling chair, but now I am a man -- the editor of one paper, the husband of one wife and the daddy of a red-headed baby girl and I guess it is time for me to be called the husband of Mrs. William D. Upshaw." 
- Congressman William D. Upshaw, The Times, Sat May 8, 1915.

But...

The picture of William Upshaw that has been painted into the minds of William Branham's followers is that of a frail, old man who was destined to a crippled life in a wheelchair. William Branham often mentions how the Congressman was so bad off that he had to be wheeled around, carried on beds, and practically unable to function. But in the newspapers, we find Upshaw travelling around in convoys of automobiles, walking around freely using his crutches, and speaking to multiple audiences per day -- both for policical speeches and evangelistic sermons. And those who paid close attention in the United States Congress noticed that something was not quite right with his stride while using crutches. It appears that the Congressman was using his crutches as a prop, often running through the floor without touching them to the ground.

Additionally, there exists third party testimony that Upshaw was seen faking his crutches, which corroborates the notion that he was exaggerating the seriousness of his disability for Branham’s purposes.

So who is lying, Huggy?  Branham or Upshaw?  Or, are you lying for Jesus?

[Huggy Bear]

You've provided no testimony / proof stating that Upshaw has been faking a disability for 66 years.

That’s clearly not what I said.  Let’s try this again.  Upshaw is quoted as saying he hasn’t been bed/wheelchair bound in twenty years, which directly contradicts the picture Branham painted of him for the purposes of his ‘healing’ services:

In a 1915 article in the Shreveport Times, Upshaw claims that his bedridden state lasted only seven years. In fact, he claimed that it had been twenty years prior when he used a wheelchair.

"The name of 'Earnest Willie' was given me when I was on bed for seven years dictating letters for the papers, and it stayed by me for a while nearly twenty years ago when I used to lecture from a rolling chair, but now I am a man -- the editor of one paper, the husband of one wife and the daddy of a red-headed baby girl and I guess it is time for me to be called the husband of Mrs. William D. Upshaw." 
- Congressman William D. Upshaw, The Times, Sat May 8, 1915.

But...

The picture of William Upshaw that has been painted into the minds of William Branham's followers is that of a frail, old man who was destined to a crippled life in a wheelchair. William Branham often mentions how the Congressman was so bad off that he had to be wheeled around, carried on beds, and practically unable to function. But in the newspapers, we find Upshaw travelling around in convoys of automobiles, walking around freely using his crutches, and speaking to multiple audiences per day -- both for policical speeches and evangelistic sermons. And those who paid close attention in the United States Congress noticed that something was not quite right with his stride while using crutches. It appears that the Congressman was using his crutches as a prop, often running through the floor without touching them to the ground.

This is absurd.

You included a quote from Upshaw, why none from Branham? No matter, I'll provide the quote for you.

Now, to you crippled people. There isn’t any of you here as bad off as Congressman Upshaw. He was sixty-six years crippled, wheeled in a wheelchair, laid on beds, helped out and went with crutches. I never seen him or heard of him in my life, and God knows that’s true. And here the man is tonight, standing before you, perfectly whole. See?

- 51-0719  Who Hath Believed Our Report? -  Rev. William Marrion Branham

Branham clearly stated he had no idea who Upshaw was, so given that it would be understandable for one to get exact details wrong; but even so, I don't see how the above statement can be construed as a lie.

Upshaw was crippled for 66 years... Fact!

Upshaw was bed ridden... Fact!

Upshaw was in a wheelchair... Fact!

Upshaw was on crutches... Fact!

Additionally, there exists third party testimony that Upshaw was seen faking his crutches, which corroborates the notion that he was exaggerating the seriousness of his disability for Branham’s purposes.

So who is lying, Huggy?  Branham or Upshaw?  Or, are you lying for Jesus?

First of all Upshaw sustained his injury 36 years before Branham was even born, and this picture taken from his wikki page taken in 1919... Branham would have been 10 years old.


It seems you're desperately grasping at straws.

[LadyForCamus]

Life never increases in life without a source, and life get's spiritual life from spiritual life. If the source of life which in it's essence is spiritual is limited, then the path towards perfection would be impossible for it and for any living being.

And if an absolute perfect judgement didn't exist, then nothing can have proper measured spiritual value, for example your personality would not be an accurate objective reality.

And if absolute perfect judgment exists, it's the highest form of living judgment and hence life and love, and hence power and sight, and hence knowledge and wisdom, and so on and so forth.

And that cannot but be one singular reality, since diverse aspects would make it imperfect, and if his infinite aspects weren't in reality one attribute of sheer perfection, and oneness, they would all lack infinite attributes at infinite absolute level and hence be a paradox to call them attributes of the perfect being.

Hence God and the Source of all life is One Sheer Singular perfection.

You welcome.

What the ever-loving fuck, MK?  Do you think up this shit on the toilet?

---

This is absurd.

You included a quote from Upshaw, why none from Branham? No matter, I'll provide the quote for you.

Now, to you crippled people. There isn’t any of you here as bad off as Congressman Upshaw. He was sixty-six years crippled, wheeled in a wheelchair, laid on beds, helped out and went with crutches. I never seen him or heard of him in my life, and God knows that’s true. And here the man is tonight, standing before you, perfectly whole. See?

- 51-0719  Who Hath Believed Our Report? -  Rev. William Marrion Branham

I’m not sure why you think the above quote by Branham invalidates the contents of the quote I posted up before it. No matter, though. I’ve got plenty of quotes from Branham. Read on.

Upshaw was crippled for 66 years... Fact!

Upshaw was bed ridden... Fact!

Upshaw was in a wheelchair... Fact!

Upshaw was on crutches... Fact!

Are you being obtuse and ignoring context on purpose?  

http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/C...man_Upshaw

Additionally, there exists third party testimony that Upshaw was seen faking his crutches, which corroborates the notion that he was exaggerating the seriousness of his disability for Branham’s purposes.

So who is lying, Huggy?  Branham or Upshaw?  Or, are you lying for Jesus?

First of all Upshaw sustained his injury 36 years before Branham was even born, and this picture taken from his wikki page taken in 1919... Branham would have been 10 years old.

I’m not sure what your point is here. As I said; you’ve been fooled.

[Abaddon_ire]

Sure, or the FSM or anything else for that matter. KCA is another "God of the Gaps" and one can inject whatever one wants into it. That is why it is utterly useless. Well, that and the premises are faulty. Oh, and that the apologists chuck in extra premises because reasons and chuck out Occam because reasons.

As I agreed previously, the KCA isn't about any specific tradition or account of God.  I think that you are completely missing the point what it is saying.  It is not appealing to "gaps" and just inserting God into them.  And if the premises are faulty, you are welcome to show where.  The rest of you post, makes me think that you are just trolling, but if you would like to discuss anything in more detail, or understand and accurately represent what you are criticizing, then you will need to be more specific.

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

Go ahead and prove that. Take your time.

[RoadRunner79]

As I agreed previously, the KCA isn't about any specific tradition or account of God.  I think that you are completely missing the point what it is saying.  It is not appealing to "gaps" and just inserting God into them.  And if the premises are faulty, you are welcome to show where.  The rest of you post, makes me think that you are just trolling, but if you would like to discuss anything in more detail, or understand and accurately represent what you are criticizing, then you will need to be more specific.

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

Go ahead and prove that. Take your time.

There has been a lot of talk about that in this thread.   If it is false, then the the logic would not follow.  However it is more reasonable to believe that this is true; rather than the opposite.   I find that many atheists scoff at, and make claims about much less,  but things poofing into existence without cause or reason seems to be readily accepted.   I find that for some, it all depends on which side of the argument God is on.

[Abaddon_ire]

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

Go ahead and prove that. Take your time.

There has been a lot of talk about that in this thread.   If it is false, then the the logic would not follow.  However it is more reasonable to believe that this is true; rather than the opposite.   I find that many atheists scoff at, and make claims about much less,  but things poofing into existence without cause or reason seems to be readily accepted.   I find that for some, it all depends on which side of the argument God is on.

Except that we know that is not the case.

Take a single atom of U235. When will it decay exactly and what causes it to do so?

[Mystic]

What the ever-loving fuck, MK? 

I love you too.