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

[SteveII]

Nope. I am not making an argument (just picking one apart). So, I make no assertions. Mathilda originally said that God does not make sense because all intelligence is subject to the law of thermodynamics. My point was and is that if God exists, he is by definition an exception.

Your assertion is that god is intelligent. So yes, there is an assertion AND a contradiction here. You are assigning a physical property to a non-physical entity. If god, by definition, is supernatural and immaterial, how can he possess a quality (intelligence) that is rooted in the physical, material processes of a physical, material brain, within a physical, material universe? I’m simply asking you to explain how; to support your assertion. The answer you gave was, ‘because he’s god.’  That’s a non-answer. It elucidates nothing.

That might be a point if I was making an argument that contained those components. I know better. You are confusing an argument with try to explain what the meaning of a couple of words are, like 'supernatural'. By pointing out that Mathilda's claim is flawed, unknowable, and her conclusion is an argument from ignorance is not the same thing as making my own argument. Go ahead, show me where I made an argument with a premise and conclusion that I can't defend (definition of an assertion).

Are you not at least making an assertion that god is intelligent?

No. I responded to her demand of giving an example of some intelligence that was not subject to the law of thermodynamics. I said that by definition God was an exception. I have made no positive argument for God--only pointing out that all her argument does is insist that I have to. 

The definition of God guarantees an exception to the law of physics. I don't have to explain definitions.

Sure.  So, why should we take seriously the positing of an entity that, by definition, requires no explanation for its alleged attributes and powers, if it can’t even be demonstrated to exist?

It does not have to come to this every time we discuss the concept of God. Actually, it is a rather unsophisticated (I'm being charitable) to demand proof all the end of every sentence about God. 

Consider this conversation:  [snipped for brevity]

Well, for starters

1. "Throwing" is an activity involving matter.
2. "Air" actually is matter
3. "Gravity" would not have an effect on something supernatural

So, by definition alone, I can rule out your analogy. But it does serve to illustrate my complaint about Mathilda's comments. She demands that I defend definitions. I don't have to. She can't show that the concept of 'God' or 'supernatural' is problematic. She is stuck with the possibility that these are exceptions. I don't have to prove their existence to point out these are exceptions. She keeps demanding why? By definition.

The analogous point in my example is that I am asserting a thing exists, and following up by saying that the thing I allege exists requires no explanation, and cannot be understood.  On those terms, should anyone take seriously my claim that a Flim Flam exists at all?

But as you know, I can give a list of common reasons and arguments why it is reasonable to believe God exists. I can't be derailing every conversation by posting my list. A 'flim falm' is not an analogy because it does not have a list of reason nor are there billions who would give personal experience testimony to its existence.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I responded to her demand of giving an example of some intelligence that was not subject to the law of thermodynamics.

No you did not. You gave no example of an intelligence that is not subject to the law of thermodynamics.

I am still waiting for an example. You know, an example that actually exists in reality.

[SteveII]

I responded to her demand of giving an example of some intelligence that was not subject to the law of thermodynamics.

No you did not. You gave no example of an intelligence that is not subject to the law of thermodynamics.

I am still waiting for an example. You know, an example that actually exists in reality.

1. Since all of our observations are within the universe and everything in the universe is subject the its laws (including thermodynamics), your statement is logically the same as: "all observations of intelligence are within the universe". Stop there. Do you understand that? 

2. Since God, if he exists or not, by definition, is not made up of stuff in the universe, he is not subject to the laws of physics. He exists apart from the universe. Stop there. Do you understand that? There is no controversy here. If you disagree with this, you disagree with millenniums-old definitions (not me).

3. Therefore, any use of the laws of physics to disprove God are logically invalid. This is an airtight conclusion from the above. 

I am not going to respond unless you address these points.

[LadyForCamus]

Are you not at least making an assertion that god is intelligent?

No.

Okay, good then, because such an assertion would be difficult to explain and almost impossible to demonstrate.  So I’ll remember going forward, that it is NOT your position that god is intelligent.

It does not have to come to this every time we discuss the concept of God. Actually, it is a rather unsophisticated (I'm being charitable) to demand proof all the end of every sentence about God.

It’s rather obvious here that you didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask again:

Why should we take seriously the positing of an entity that, by definition, requires no explanation for its alleged attributes and powers, and cannot be demonstrated to exist?

But as you know, I can give a list of common reasons and arguments why it is reasonable to believe God exists.

No, none that aren’t either fatally, logically flawed, or reliant upon unsound premises.  

A 'flim falm' is not an analogy because it does not have a list of reason nor are there billions who would give personal experience testimony to its existence.

That you have a bunch of other people who believe in your inexplicable, indemonstrable entity, doesn’t change the fact that it IS inexplicable and indemonstrable, and as such, possesses no explanatory power with regard to anything in the real world.  And, is essentially indistinguishable from imagination.

[robvalue]

I guess Huggy is just going to blow past the fact that Min demolished his precious, ‘reliable’ eye-witness account of the supernatural light. By his OWN admission, that was the only thing he had that placed Christianity ahead of Odinism, and now it’s gone.

He's also plugging his ears and eyes to the mounting number of eye-witness accounts for Odin. How many will it take before he believes? Of course, the honest reply would be that no number would ever convince him.

This is the problem with people like him. Everything is evidence for (his) God, and nothing can be evidence against it. He just points at anything and says "God did that".

It's incredible that he's not taking the opportunity to question the eye witnesses to Odin. Imagine if someone could talk to some people who had seen Jesus for themselves! The questions they would ask! But no, absolutely no interest in learning anything about his new master.

[possibletarian]

If god is thought to be outside of any method of proving existence, then surely he is to all intents and purposes non existent ?
God cannot then claimed to be anywhere, or anything but a thought of the mind.

[robvalue]

That's an alternative definition for "supernatural" someone came up with, actually. It's things that exist only in subjective experiences, and not in objective reality. Although it doesn't meet what woo peddlers want it to mean, it does actually cover virtually everything they talk about.

[Huggy Bear]

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?

What I saying is much more basic.  If a particular type of miracle can be faked, then absent controlled conditions to prevent faking, it's not proof of anything.  

If I showed you a video of a man pulling a coin out of his or someone else's ear  and testified I saw it happen  would you believe he was magic? No? Why not? Because it's a common magic trick that's why.  To know he'd really pulled a coin out of his ear or mine you'd have to first strip search him, use a bare room of your own choice, and deprive him of most of his clothes.  

Many, many, fake faith healers have been exposed over the years.  Not surprisingly, it's often magicians who expose them.  The methods are shared in common with psychic readers who have been faking a along time too. Because it's commonly faked, more than just I saw it happen is required to show it really happened.  Controlled conditions are required

Fake healers use a variety of methods.  Not all communication requires radio. Just memorizing what you've  been told before the show works just fine.  So does suggestive questioning.  So no, the year it happened doesn't matter.  Without controlled conditions no report of a faith healer, including the accounts in the Gospels, can be assumed to be real.

Spoken as someone who has no Idea of how "faith healing" works.

First of all there is no such thing as a 'faith healer' there is not one person with the ability to heal, I'n the video I posted, at 3:36 Branham made it clear that he had no ability to heal, but to get it in your head the Jesus Christ has already done it.

---

---

Healing is a finished work:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. - 1 Peter 2:24

In order to receive healing one must accept it on the basis of faith. This is why Branham with out ever previously meeting a person could tell them things about their life that he couldn't possibly know, the purpose of this isn't to show off, but to strengthen their faith in order to receive healing.

Science has tapped into this by way of the placebo effect, the difference is that the patients faith is based on a lie... Get it.

God strengthens your faith by telling you the truth, Science attempts to do this by lying.

As far as con artist go, you can find people throughout the bible that try to mimic the genuine gift of God. The reason why someone would attempt to fake any of Gods gifts, other than money and fame, is because the bible states that certain gifts would be in the church, if your church has none of these gifts then there is something wrong, hence the fake impersonators.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you're all a bunch of fakes and impersonators, and something is wrong with your churches.  QED

[Huggy Bear]

I guess Huggy is just going to blow past the fact that Min demolished his precious, ‘reliable’ eye-witness account of the supernatural light.  By his OWN admission, that was the only thing he had that placed Christianity ahead of Odinism, and now it’s gone.

Link Min's post sweetie, because I don't think Min's post does all the demolishing you think it does.