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

[I_am_not_mafia]

You are assuming that your god exists. There is no evidence to warrant that assumption being made.

Provide one example of something existing that is also supernatural.

Wait a minute. All this started when you thought you had a clever argument that God was not thermodynamically possible.

Right, so let's recap the conversation. I ask

"Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics."

You respond:

"Supernatural intelligence.

By definition, it is not subject to natural laws. "

So I ask:

"Provide one example of something existing that is also supernatural"

You response is:

"Now to salvage your part of the discussion, you take the typical atheist tack of "well...you don't have any evidence of God anyway...so there." "

So to summarise, like all theists, you are using supernatural as an excuse not to explain anything. It's so typical. The argument goes God is supernatural and therefore needs no explanation about how it could possibly exist or do anything. It just gives you an excuse to imagine any old shit because hey, it's supernatural therefore you can't argue that it is implausible or does not exist even though supernatural by definition means that it does not exist in nature. Circular logic indeed.

So when I asked for one example of intelligence not subject to the laws of thermodynamics, you failed to do so and instead responded with an example that you cannot show exists, and which by definition of being supernatural cannot exist. And then when I try to ask you for an example of anything that is supernatural you call me disingenuous..

Or to put it even more succinctly, I ask for an example of something. You provide an example of your god and criticise me for saying that there is no evidence that your god exists.

So having failed to answer the original question, I shall pose it again.

Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

[LadyForCamus]

Hickey is a known fraud.  I"m sure Huggy has written checks to all of them.

http://www.equip.org/article/whats-wrong...-part-one/

Faith teachers such as Robert Tilton and his female counterpart, Marilyn Hickey, have copied many of the scams pioneered by Pentecostal preachers such as Oral Roberts and A. A. Allen. In fact, Tilton and Hickey have managed to exceed even their predecessors’ outrageous ploys. This is hard to believe when one considers what sort of schemes they had to outdo.

Oh, for fuck’s sake, Huggy.

More on Hickey from equip.org:

Marilyn Hickey

Marilyn Hickey, much like Tilton, employs a broad range of tactics to manipulate followers into sending her money. Among her many ploys are anointed prayer cloths, ceremonial breastplates, and ropes that can be used as points of contact. In one of her appeal letters, Hickey promises she will slip into a ceremonial breastplate, “press your prayer request to my heart,” and “place your requests on my shoulders” — all for a suggested donation.48
For the most part, Hickey’s tricks and teachings are recycled from other prosperity peddlers like Tilton, Hagin, and Copeland. Her message is peppered with such Faith jargon as “the God-kind of faith,” “confession brings possession,” and “receiving follows giving.”

Hugz, you are officially a lost cause.  

[SteveII]

1. If God exists, he is immaterial (be definition)
2. The universe is material (by definition)
3. If God exists, then God is the best explanation of the universe (from Occam's razor, PSR)
4. If God exists, an immaterial God created a material universe (from 1-3)
5. Creation is causation (be definition)
6. Therefore, if God exists, the immaterial has causation over the material. (from 4-5)

1. That's one way to define God, certainly not the only way.  
2. Yep.
3. If the Creator of the Universe exists, the Creator of the universe is the most likely explanation for the universe. No need to invoke Occam, it's a tautology.
4. If 1. correctly defines God and 3. is true, that does follow.
5. Yep.
6. Uh huh.

That was sort of interesting. Let's try this:

1. If God doesn't exist or is in some sense material.
2. The universe is material and not entirely illusory or made of spirit thoughts or some such.
3. If God doesn't exist or is in some sense material, the universe had a material cause.
4. If God doesn't exist or is in some sense material, you don't even need a 4.
5. Creation is causation.
6. Therefore, if God doesn't exist or is material, no reason to suppose the immaterial has any affect at all on the material

Basically, your argument is just asserting that God is immaterial and created the universe, broken into pieces. I'm pretty sure 'show your work' was meant to evoke an attempt to explain how an immaterial God would affect a material universe. We all already know that you think God does that, your argument was completely lacking in new information.

Actually, I did not assert anything at all. My number 3 is pretty tight reasoning. The rest is definitions. 

Regarding the question about how God did it, that is a nonsense question. How could we understand the process of creating a universe from nothing, by a being we can only just begin to fathom, from a point of view within the universe we barely understand? It is an unknowable question and asking it makes no point whatsoever in a discussion.  

By the way, your syllogism is lacking because you have failed to rule out all immaterial objects. You assumed, for your argument, that only one such possibility did not exist. Your number 6 does not follow from the premises--it is an assertion. There may be other reasons or I could argue that you would never know of a immaterial cause because by definition, immaterial is undetectable. In other words, for you to make a successful argument, you would have to prove that there was no such thing as the immaterial. Something you can't do.

[GrandizerII]

1. That's one way to define God, certainly not the only way.  
2. Yep.
3. If the Creator of the Universe exists, the Creator of the universe is the most likely explanation for the universe. No need to invoke Occam, it's a tautology.
4. If 1. correctly defines God and 3. is true, that does follow.
5. Yep.
6. Uh huh.

That was sort of interesting. Let's try this:

1. If God doesn't exist or is in some sense material.
2. The universe is material and not entirely illusory or made of spirit thoughts or some such.
3. If God doesn't exist or is in some sense material, the universe had a material cause.
4. If God doesn't exist or is in some sense material, you don't even need a 4.
5. Creation is causation.
6. Therefore, if God doesn't exist or is material, no reason to suppose the immaterial has any affect at all on the material

Basically, your argument is just asserting that God is immaterial and created the universe, broken into pieces. I'm pretty sure 'show your work' was meant to evoke an attempt to explain how an immaterial God would affect a material universe. We all already know that you think God does that, your argument was completely lacking in new information.

Actually, I did not assert anything at all. My number 3 is pretty tight reasoning. The rest is definitions. 

Regarding the question about how God did it, that is a nonsense question. How could we understand the process of creating a universe from nothing, by a being we can only just begin to fathom, from a point of view within the universe we barely understand? It is an unknowable question and asking it makes no point whatsoever in a discussion.  

By the way, your syllogism is lacking because you have failed to rule out all immaterial objects. You assumed, for your argument, that only one such possibility did not exist. Your number 6 does not follow from the premises--it is an assertion. There may be other reasons or I could argue that you would never know of a immaterial cause because by definition, immaterial is undetectable. In other words, for you to make a successful argument, you would have to prove that there was no such thing as the immaterial. Something you can't do.

Before your position can even be taken seriously, you need to be clear on what you mean by "immaterial", distinguishing it from (1) "material", (2) "abstract", and (3) "non-existent". You're just arguing "mumbo jumbo" at this point.

[SteveII]

Simple. 

1. If God exists, he is immaterial (be definition)
2. The universe is material (by definition)
3. If God exists, then God is the best explanation of the universe (from Occam's razor, PSR)
4. If God exists, an immaterial God created a material universe (from 1-3)
5. Creation is causation (be definition)
6. Therefore, if God exists, the immaterial has causation over the material. (from 4-5)

1: So god is made from nothing. Do you know what else is made from nothing? all non-existent things.
3: God is not a good explanation for the universe. It would pose more questions than it answers.
4: I see you don't like details, how did an immaterial being (whatever that is) create the universe?
6: none of what you put leads to that conclusion.

First, the syllogism is airtight and I gave reasons at the end of each line.

1. I did not say 'nothing'. Words and their definitions are important. Look up words if you can't understand them. 
3. If God exists, he is an excellent explanation of the universe. This is not a point you are going to win. There is no debate here.
4. 'How' is unknowable. See my answer to Mister Agenda above.

You think that since the argument contains the notion of God, there must be something wrong with it. Actually, many of you seem to think this way. That is simply not true and trying to pick an argument apart based on that shows you are in over your head.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Oh back to 'causes' now. This assumes that everything in the universe is a set of discrete events. Another word like 'supernatural' which can be used for equivocation and conflation because it has a 'common sense' meaning that isn't useful when dealing with specifics.

---

Before your position can even be taken seriously, you need to be clear on what you mean by "immaterial", distinguishing it from (1) "material", (2) "abstract", and (3) "non-existent". You're just arguing "mumbo jumbo" at this point.

Oh yes, immaterial is one of those useful theist words as well.

[SteveII]

Wait a minute. All this started when you thought you had a clever argument that God was not thermodynamically possible.

Right, so let's recap the conversation. I ask

"Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics."

You respond:

"Supernatural intelligence.

By definition, it is not subject to natural laws. "

So I ask:

"Provide one example of something existing that is also supernatural"

You response is:

"Now to salvage your part of the discussion, you take the typical atheist tack of "well...you don't have any evidence of God anyway...so there." "

So to summarise, like all theists, you are using supernatural as an excuse not to explain anything. It's so typical. The argument goes God is supernatural and therefore needs no explanation about how it could possibly exist or do anything. It just gives you an excuse to imagine any old shit because hey, it's supernatural therefore you can't argue that it is implausible or does not exist even though supernatural by definition means that it does not exist in nature. Circular logic indeed.

So when I asked for one example of intelligence not subject to the laws of thermodynamics, you failed to do so and instead responded with an example that you cannot show exists, and which by definition of being supernatural cannot exist. And then when I try to ask you for an example of anything that is supernatural you call me disingenuous..

Or to put it even more succinctly, I ask for an example of something. You provide an example of your god and criticise me for saying that there is no evidence that your god exists.

So having failed to answer the original question, I shall pose it again.

Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

GOD. 

Why can't you see that all you are doing is insisting that I prove the existence of God. That is all you are doing!!!!


Your form of the argument is a just an argument from ignorance. You are asserting that intelligence is subject to the laws of thermodynamics because I can't prove otherwise. You have no other reasons for thinking so. This is a fallacious argument and your conclusion is meaningless. 

Your complaint about me using "supernatural" as an excuse is silly as well. I had to bring it up because of your complete lack of understanding of what you are arguing against. Your arguments do not make sense because you are completely ignoring properties that are definitionally attached to things like 'God' and the 'supernatural'. If you ignore the definitions and then use the word, you are talking nonsense OR if I use the word and you don't except the definition, you have no argument.

---

Actually, I did not assert anything at all. My number 3 is pretty tight reasoning. The rest is definitions. 

Regarding the question about how God did it, that is a nonsense question. How could we understand the process of creating a universe from nothing, by a being we can only just begin to fathom, from a point of view within the universe we barely understand? It is an unknowable question and asking it makes no point whatsoever in a discussion.  

By the way, your syllogism is lacking because you have failed to rule out all immaterial objects. You assumed, for your argument, that only one such possibility did not exist. Your number 6 does not follow from the premises--it is an assertion. There may be other reasons or I could argue that you would never know of a immaterial cause because by definition, immaterial is undetectable. In other words, for you to make a successful argument, you would have to prove that there was no such thing as the immaterial. Something you can't do.

Before your position can even be taken seriously, you need to be clear on what you mean by "immaterial", distinguishing it from (1) "material", (2) "abstract", and (3) "non-existent". You're just arguing "mumbo jumbo" at this point.

im·ma·te·ri·al
ˌi(m)məˈtirēəl/
adjective

1. 2.
   PHILOSOPHY
   spiritual, rather than physical.
   "we have immaterial souls"
   synonyms:
   intangible, incorporeal, bodiless, disembodied, impalpable, ethereal, insubstantial, metaphysical; More
   

The opposite of 'material'.
Nothing to do with 'abstract'.
Nothing to do with 'non-existent'.

[downbeatplumb]

When people resort to using the term supernatural it is just to disguise the fact that they have nothing to offer, you could substitute it with the word magic and it means more or less the same.

[LadyForCamus]

1: So god is made from nothing. Do you know what else is made from nothing? all non-existent things.
3: God is not a good explanation for the universe. It would pose more questions than it answers.
4: I see you don't like details, how did an immaterial being (whatever that is) create the universe?
6: none of what you put leads to that conclusion.

'How' is unknowable.

And what would you have thought of the above as a response to your Infinities thread?  “We can’t know how infinities exist, Steve, but they do.”   It’s a non-explanation.

[GrandizerII]

Before your position can even be taken seriously, you need to be clear on what you mean by "immaterial", distinguishing it from (1) "material", (2) "abstract", and (3) "non-existent". You're just arguing "mumbo jumbo" at this point.

im·ma·te·ri·al
ˌi(m)məˈtirēəl/
adjective

1. 2.
   PHILOSOPHY
   spiritual, rather than physical.
   "we have immaterial souls"
   synonyms:
   intangible, incorporeal, bodiless, disembodied, impalpable, ethereal, insubstantial, metaphysical; More
   

The opposite of 'material'.
Nothing to do with 'abstract'.
Nothing to do with 'non-existent'.

Great, but nothing much has been clarified. Next question: what does "spiritual" mean? What distinguishes "spiritual" from "physical"?