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

[I_am_not_mafia]

It took ten seconds to find a case totally unrelated to what we're discussing? Are you suggesting that one con artist preacher equates to all preachers being con artists? William Branham started preaching in the 1930's, so how is the guy with the earpiece remotely related?

How do you know that it wasn't a con with the single eye-witness in the audience in on it? The halo could easily have been forged by applying light selectively during development with your 'world renowned expert' being unable to determine this.

After all, we know that such cons exist with religious preachers.

[Edwardo Piet]

This post is so fucking epic it hurts.

---

---

Lmao!  Please include audio commentary with all your posts going forward.  I love it.

I'm already doing it. I don't normally follow through with my crazy ideas but I thought it might be both a bit of run and rather unique.

---

---

[Joods]

For real...

I've stated I'd provide evidence for God and challenged anyone to provide evidence against and we'd who had the most evidence for or against. You guys are on record saying my evidence is "low" in standard which I'm granting, either way low does not equate to zero, So I still have a leg up on Odin for which absolutely ZERO evidence that meets my "low" standard has been submitted.

You were supposed to provide evidence against Odin. Still waiting.

He's simply moving the goal posts to suit his position. A position, which he still has yet to provide evidence for. 

He's just engaging in the standard theist practice of "Dodge and evade until they get upset, give up and then I win!"

No Huggy - you don't win. You just look even more stupid than you did before.

[Edwardo Piet]

No Huggy - you don't win. You just look even more stupid than you did before.

Huggy does win something though: The biggest embarrassment on the forums award.

---

---

[Joods]

It took ten seconds to find a case totally unrelated to what we're discussing? Are you suggesting that one con artist preacher equates to all preachers being con artists? William Branham started preaching in the 1930's, so how is the guy with the earpiece remotely related?

Where's your evidence disproving Odin? THAT'S the topic here.  

Jenny gets a free pass on this because avoiding the actual topic, is all you've managed to do this entire thread.

[Angrboda]

No, I am asking for one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Something that actually exists, not something made up and given the excuse of being 'supernatural'.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? 


Maybe you should read up about arguments from ignorance (if you do not have problems with reading comprehension that is).

I am stating that all known examples of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

You are the one making the claim that intelligence does not need to be subject to the laws of thermodynamics (by hand waving and mumbling 'supernatural') ... yet you are not explaining how or why and then accusing me of being ignorant. Even though you are the one making the claim and refusing to back it up with any reasoning or evidence.

Yet because I can't fill in the gaps for your half arsed explanations relying on equivocation, I am the ignorant one apparently.

This is real simple. God, by definition, would be an exception to your claim that "all known examples of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics." You think that I have to prove God or your statement is true. That IS EXACTLY equivalent to what I said above: "...all you are doing is insisting that I prove the existence of God. That is all you are doing!!!!"

Thinking that your statement is true unless I prove it wrong is very much the definition of an argument from ignorance. 

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
   
   
2. false
   
   
3. unknown between true or false
   
   
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Bullshit. It's not an argument from ignorance. It's an inductive argument, and it's valid. "All examples of intelligence we have are subject to the laws of thermodynamics, therefore we are justified in believing that all cases of intelligence are subject to the laws of thermodynamics." The same goes for your typical complaint about arguments against miracles being begging the question. All she is doing is asking you to justify your believing otherwise by providing one counter-example. Sheesh! You are a master at uncharitable interpretation of your opponent's arguments.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Consider this conversation:

You: When you throw things in the air they will fall down, because of gravity.

Me: No, not all things.

You: Okay, give me an example of a thing that doesn’t fall down when you throw it in the air.

Me:  A Flim Flam.

You:  What is a Flim Flam, and explain how it can violate gravity?

Me:  Well, a Flim Flam is supernatural, so there is really no way for us to comprehend how.  

I would imagine your response would be something along the lines of, “then why should I take seriously the claim that such a thing exists at all?

I hope that you're not going to suggest that I am not in telepathic communication with my car ...

https://atheistforums.org/thread-53806.html

[Edwardo Piet]

Huggy can't disprove Odin because Odin isn't self-contradictory and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Of course, he thinks he can... because he's a deluded fuckbucket who thinks photos of light prove God and that the Bible is so magical that he can mental gymnast his way through all 525 of its contradictions... but yeah: I always knew Huggy was as dumb as rocks but this just takes the fucking dickbiscuit.

---

---

[Mister Agenda]

[quote=SteveII]
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.

Tautology IS about as tight as reasoning gets, I reckon.

I didn't intend my argument to be taken so seriously, I didn't put much thought into it, you have cogently pointed out its flaws, though. Good work.

[LadyForCamus]

Consider this conversation:

You: When you throw things in the air they will fall down, because of gravity.

Me: No, not all things.

You: Okay, give me an example of a thing that doesn’t fall down when you throw it in the air.

Me:  A Flim Flam.

You:  What is a Flim Flam, and explain how it can violate gravity?

Me:  Well, a Flim Flam is supernatural, so there is really no way for us to comprehend how.  

I would imagine your response would be something along the lines of, “then why should I take seriously the claim that such a thing exists at all?

I hope that you're not going to suggest that I am not in telepathic communication with my car ...

https://atheistforums.org/thread-53806.html

Herbie the Love Bug!  😁

God, whatever you do, don’t piss it off!