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

[LadyForCamus]

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.

His post #425 followed by my post #432.

[Amarok]

Link Min's post

Why so you can deny the ass kicking your position receives 

 sweetie

Creep 

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

No he demolishes your numbskull beliefs pretty thoroughly. You on the other hand ....

[I_am_not_mafia]

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? 

Glad you said that. Nothing else needs to be said.

You cannot give an example of intelligence that is not subject to the law of thermodynamics.

But to be fair to you, I was originally using this as an argument as to why your god cannot exist so I will address the next point

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.

This actually ties in with my second argument about why gods cannot exist. Because there cannot be an unambiguous definition of what a god is. If you try coming up with one then you have something that is not a god. An alien for example. But the relevance here is that you cannot say that a god is by definition not made up of stuff in the universe and not subject to the laws of physics ... because there is no single definition of a what a god is.

But getting back to why intelligence is important, I'll refer back to my earlier post:

It only seems nonsense to you because you do not understand the nature of intelligence. How can your god exist or think without being constrained by the laws of Thermodynamics?

This is because intelligence is a form of self-organisation and self-organisation happens because of the laws of thermodynamics. I know intelligence probably seems all magical to you, but it really isn't. Hence my analogy in another thread of the difficulty of convincing mechanics that my car is telepathic. The same laws that make a ball roll down a slope and come to a stop, are the same laws that allow crystals to form, that allow weather patterns to play out, planets and solar systems to form and the same laws that allow intelligence to take place.

So you have spent many pages arguing that your god is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics and at the same time have been unwittingly without knowing it arguing for me to accept something that means that your god cannot be intelligent.

It really is like arguing that although all real-world vehicles have to move to be considered a vehicle, your god-mobile doesn't need to move because it's a supernatural vehicle. But without acknowledging that if true, it would no longer be a god-vehicle but a god-container

In the same way that a vehicle needs to move something to be considered a vehicle, intelligence needs to settle into stable configurations. The function of intelligence is inherently tied to thermodynamics. And by intelligence I am talking about strong, generalisable intelligence. It needs to be embodied in an environment, it needs to be active but not to the point of being chaotic.

I think therefore I am constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Now if you are willing to drop the requirement for your god to be eternal and accept that it must subject to the laws of thermodynamics, then you can have a thinking god. But the consequence of this is that it's only a god until we come up with a better definition for whatever the alien is.

[Jenny A]

[Huggy Bear]

[I_am_not_mafia]

[SteveII]

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.

That is not the same thing (and you should be able to discern that). Because I didn't assert it in this discussion does not mean that I think that God is not intelligent. I'm trying not to assert OR argue anything. Mathilda's argument is so bad by itself that I shouldn't need even make a counter argument. 

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.[/quote]

Are we moving on? Do you want positive arguments for God? You have seen my list: pick one (preferably in a new thread--this one has a stupid title). A reminder: this is not an argument--it is a list of reasons/arguments. 

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

I will predict the outcome of any discussion right now. I will successfully defend them because there are not logical flaws in them. So you will eventually just declare "well...it is not compelling." I will state that it is a cumulative case. You will say that it is not proof. I will post this: 

What exactly do you mean by "prove"? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

• Scientific proof
  
• Historical proof
  
• Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
  
• Proof resulting from personal experience
  

There also also different thresholds of proof:

• Possible
  
• More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
  
• Beyond reasonable doubt
  
• Absolute certainty
  

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some).

In my experience, a discussion like the one you are intending is a long series of shifting the goal post until you arrive at demanding something akin to absolute certainty resulting from scientific proof for a specific belief. The problem is that this is not the standard necessary for a rational belief. 

Look at that. I saved us a lot of time if you just want to fast forward to the end and admit that belief in God is not your thing, but it is not irrational.

[Jenny A]

[SteveII]

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.

I did not say that God was "outside of any method of proving existence". We have at least the following:

1. Inferrence
2. Deductive reasoning
3. Interaction with the natural world 
    a. NT
    b. Continued miracles
    c. Testimony of experiences/changed lives/relationships and
    d. Personal experience.

[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.

I did not say that God was "outside of any method of proving existence". We have at least the following:

1. Inferrence
2. Deductive reasoning
3. Interaction with the natural world 
    a. NT
    b. Continued miracles
    c. Testimony of experiences/changed lives/relationships and
    d. Personal experience.

All of which can be explained without invoking a creature with impossible to prove characteristics, like I said all in the mind then.
Apart from wanting god to exist, do you have anything real you can offer ?