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]

[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]