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

[SteveII]

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 ?

I offered a list of different ways of discovering that God exists. To which you replied "All of which can be explained...". Even if you had a theory for each of them, those theories are your opinion. You cannot prove one counter-argument to any of the above--not one. 

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

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.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is by definition rationale (from my reasoning listed above). The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

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.

But if God can't be defined then how can it be the best explanation for anything?

[vulcanlogician]

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.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is by definition rationale (from my reasoning listed above). The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

(added strikethrough)

The first three items (though I personally have problems with them) can in fact serve as a rational basis for belief. But the stricken items under number 4 represent arguments from ignorance-- they represent "god of the gaps" reasoning.

Before we understood the water cycle: God was the best explanation for what made the rain fall/weather patterns.
Before we understood gravity: God was the best explanation for what supported celestial bodies and kept them from falling.
Before we understood medicine: God was the best explanation for disease and illness.

For a and e.... I don't think this represents god of the gaps reasoning, but still, nothing makes God the best explanation there either. It is shaky logic to consider god the best explanation. (We've discussed the problems with those elsewhere, anyway.)

But b, c, and, d are right out. In no way is it rational for a theist to believe based on those.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It sounds like car crash territory to ask why Stevell's god must be the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness ...

[possibletarian]

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 ?

I offered a list of different ways of discovering that God exists. To which you replied "All of which can be explained...". Even if you had a theory for each of them, those theories are your opinion. You cannot prove one counter-argument to any of the above--not one. 

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

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.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is by definition rationale (from my reasoning listed above). The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

Oh I believe that you believe them I've already said that, and that you believe the explanation satisfactory.  I don't think anyone here has a problem with accepting that you believe.

Of course you can't prove a counter arguments to things which only exist in peoples minds,again I don't have to,  I say if you can prove any of the above then please do so, it's been an open invitation as long as you have been on this forum, of that I'm sure.  At the very best you are offering an opinion, none of which can be considered reasonable proof.

As for it meeting you personal threshold of proof, that's fine at least for you, but if you out to convince others then i would suggest it requires considerably more convincing proof if indeed inference can even be called proof.  You are a perfect example of what this thread set out to accomplish, that faith statements about timeless, space-less, immaterial, spiritual beings can not be unproven no matter how whacky, stupid or silly they are.

And if the threshold for you believing is simply that no one can disprove what you believe then that equally justifies anyone's belief in any unprovable/non falsifiable claim.

[Amarok]

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.

Opinions nothing 

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs,

We don't need to disprove them  as they are baseless assertion nothing more

[SteveII]

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.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is by definition rationale (from my reasoning listed above). The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

(added strikethrough)

The first three items (though I personally have problems with them) can in fact serve as a rational basis for belief. But the stricken items under number 4 represent arguments from ignorance-- they represent "god of the gaps" reasoning.

Before we understood the water cycle: God was the best explanation for what made the rain fall/weather patterns.
Before we understood gravity: God was the best explanation for what supported celestial bodies and kept them from falling.
Before we understood medicine: God was the best explanation for disease and illness.

For a and e.... I don't think this represents god of the gaps reasoning, but still, nothing makes God the best explanation there either. It is shaky logic to consider god the best explanation. (We've discussed the problems with those elsewhere, anyway.)

But b, c, and, d are right out. In no way is it rational for a theist to believe based on those.

Not God of the Gaps at all.

b. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a God-of-the-gaps argument. It is a sound deductive piece of reasoning
c. The Fine Tuning argument is a good argument in a cumulative case. Actually I have heard Sam Harris said it's the best argument that Christian philosophers make. It is not god-of-the-gaps because it uses probability and science to show the inexplicable nature of our universe. 
d. Using a pretty sophisticated argument, J. P. Moreland shows how naturalism cannot account for the epiphenomenon of consciousness, and makes an argument for a non-naturalistic, personal explanation. 

I can debate any of these separately. Let me know when and where.

---

I offered a list of different ways of discovering that God exists. To which you replied "All of which can be explained...". Even if you had a theory for each of them, those theories are your opinion. You cannot prove one counter-argument to any of the above--not one. 

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

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.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is by definition rationale (from my reasoning listed above). The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

Oh I believe that you believe them I've already said that, and that you believe the explanation satisfactory.  I don't think anyone here has a problem with accepting that you believe.

Of course you can't prove a counter arguments to things which only exist in peoples minds,again I don't have to,  I say if you can prove any of the above then please do so, it's been an open invitation as long as you have been on this forum, of that I'm sure.  At the very best you are offering an opinion, none of which can be considered reasonable proof.

As for it meeting you personal threshold of proof, that's fine at least for you, but if you out to convince others then i would suggest it requires considerably more convincing proof if indeed inference can even be called proof.  You are a perfect example of what this thread set out to accomplish, that faith statements about timeless, space-less, immaterial, spiritual beings can not be unproven no matter how whacky, stupid or silly they are.

And if the threshold for you believing is simply that no one can disprove what you believe then that equally justifies anyone's belief in any unprovable/non falsifiable claim.

I have never set out here at AF to convince anyone. I have never said that the atheist position is even unreasonable. All I do is defend against stupid reasoning, mischaracterizations,  strawmen, and make a general attempt to show the Christian belief is rational and defensible (and NOT just opinion).  I adjust my stances slightly as I learn things. I improve my discussion and critical thinking skills along the way.

---

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

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.

But if God can't be defined then how can it be the best explanation for anything?

What is up with you? Why do you think God is not defined? There have been like 4,000,000 books written on the subject of God. Here's an idea: Google "defining the god of monotheism" and read a few things.

[vulcanlogician]

Not God of the Gaps at all.

b. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a God-of-the-gaps argument. It is a sound deductive piece of reasoning

Let's just look at b.

If you think it through to the end, the cosmological argument is a god of the gaps argument. It seems well-worn by now (and there are other objections aside from the "god of the gaps" objection), but it can be fruitive to re-hash well-worn arguments.

Let's take a look at the part to which my objection pertains:

1) The universe has a cause;
2) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

I take issue with the second premise. It is, in essence, god of the gaps reasoning. Even assuming that the universe has a cause, there is no reason that a personal creator has to be it.

What is wrong with this argument?:

1) Something causes the rain to fall.
2) If something causes the rain to fall, it must be a being who is situated in the heavens and has it within his power to make large amounts of water fall from the sky.

Therefore:

A being who is situated in the heavens with the power to make large amounts of water fall from the sky exists.

It's been said before, but I haven't heard your answer to it. If the universe must have an uncaused cause, why must that uncaused cause be God?

[Amarok]

All theist arguments are god of the gaps by default .

[LadyForCamus]

His post #425 followed by my post #432.

First of all you and Min's mistake is assuming that because I believe what she says about her experience 50+ years ago, that I somehow associate with her 100%,-

Once again, the concept of objectivity goes right over your head.  What you, personally believe about her is irrelevant here.  She’s a fraud.  She’s a televangelist who rips people off. This is a demonstrable fact, and I have other sources if just the one is not enough for you.  So, let’s go over what we have again with this updated information:

1. A priest who says he saw light.

2. A group of people, including a known religious con-artist, who claim they saw a light

3. A photo of light.

Again I ask...where is your evidence that the light in the photo is god?

If you knew anything about William Branhams teachings, you'd know that he spoke against women preaching, wearing pants, and cutting their hair (all biblically based), Marilyn Hickey does all three, so she obviously doesn't adhere to Branhams teachings, she just happened to attend one of his services a long time ago.[/i]

Completely irrelevant, Huggy.

But like I said, I could provide witness testimony all day, How about congressman Upshaw?

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

Congressman Upshaw had been on crutches for 59 years, and this is Upshaw's own testimony which was written in the above tract.
[quote]
I walked into that Branham-Baxter meeting in Calvary Temple, Los Angeles, loving God and His blessed Word, leaning on my crutches that had been my “buddies”-my helpful comrades for 59 of my 66 years as a cripple-7 of those years spend on bed; I walked out that night of February 8th, leaving my crutches on the platform – the song of deliverance ringing in my heart in happy consonance with the should sof victory from those who thronged about me – their tears of rejoicing crystal with the light of the skies’ chief among them was my blessed wife whose dear face, glowing amid her joyous exclamations: “Praise the Lord” and “Glory to God,” was beaming like a patch of Heaven.

You’re serious?  Oh, you’re serious.  Lol.  You know nothing about this man’s affliction, if it was even real.  You have no access to his medical records, if any exist.  You have no way of ruling out the possibility that he was faking it, nor the possibility that there was a natural explanation for his alleged regained function.  This is blatant confirmation bias, AGAIN.  You’re starting with your conclusion and working backward from there.  And, more to the point, can you please explain to me how the hell the testimony of this congressman regarding his healed legs is evidence that that light in the photo is god? I don’t think you understand what evidence is.

Noteworthy aside:  Nowhere in the Wiki article of this man’s life is Congressman Upshaw’s ‘miraculous healing’ mentioned.


Also, I’m drinking wine, so if none of this makes sense, just say so. 😝 🍷