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

[The Valkyrie]

What or who was the cause of this "God" being?

[The Grand Nudger]

Now give me examples of things that don't have causes. 

Indeed...that's exactly what I asked you for.  I'll take two, please.

Ultimately, your "argument" is tautological and has nothing to do with any god. It merely asserts that caused things have causes. Well, no shit. So let's hear about un-caused things..to make sure it's not an empty set, or worse..... a set with a single conveniently asserted representative, rendering the entire premise of your working with some inductive this or that, more accurately..you breathlessly stating the articles of your faith.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Name something that began to exist and tell us the exact moment this would have happened and the cause.

You might be able to manage it, I don't know. But for sure you can't say this about everything.

Item (cause)
Most of the elements/compounds that make up my keyboard began to exist (stars, pressure, other chemical reactions)

So your keyboard began to exist billions of years ago? At which point? When the last atom in your keyboard became the necessary element required for the chemical reaction? When the elements were used in the final chemical reactions that make up the matter in your keyboard? When it was finally asembled.

This post (me, electricity, my computer components, the internet and all the hardware necessary to maintain that connection)

When did it begin to exist? When you started typing it? When you hit send? When the server received the response? When the server unlocked the database after updating it? When the webserver first displayed it because someone refreshed the thread?

I began to exist. (parents, biological processes)

When your father's sperm cell invaded the wall of your mother's egg? When the egg started dividing? When you were born?

My office began to exist (a builder, some supplies)

When the very first elements were formed that make up the office? When the final brick was laid down? When you moved in and started using it as an office? When the final fixture was fitted?

Our sun began to exist (dense gasses and whatnot)

When it was still a nebular? When the shockwave of a supernova hit it? When the ignition first started with the first atom? When the last atom in the nebular got swallowed up? When the first photon of light was emitted?

Our galaxy began to exist (more of the same)

More of the same.

Now give me examples of things that don't have causes. 

Lest you think you can play around, let's use the same definition of the word:

cause
kôz/
noun

1. 1.
   a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
   

No. Let's not use that definition. Because my entire point is that using the word 'cause' in the KCA is equivocation and conflation. The word is meant to be used as short hand to communicate information quickly. Fine in every day language if I am going to say "Sorry, I caused that explosion", but not precise enough to hang an entire belief system on.

This is because reality is not broken down into discrete events. It is a continuous changing process made up of a myriad of smaller continuous processes. Using the short hand term of 'cause' that is useful for our every day lives when talking about how the universe we currently see came about is conflation and takes the word out of scope.

So let's see the KCA re-written without the use of the word 'cause' in a way that acknowledges that the universe continually changes.

And if you did that then it still wouldn't help because I can even make the same argument for the word 'thing'. When does a thing begin and a thing end?

[downbeatplumb]

---

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?


Completely irrelevant, Huggy.

Lol, everything is fake.

The guy was a public figure, you can find photographs of him as a young man in a wheel chair, seeing how he received a spinal injury at 18 and spent the next 7 years of his life bedridden, so the best you can do is claim the man has been faking the injury for 66 years?

---

It seems that Mr. Upshaw claimed to be healed several times, through several different means: https://www.facebook.com/SeekYeTheTruth/...52/?type=3

Has Huggy found Marilyn Hickey’s missing uterus yet?

*emphasis mine*

You do realize that condition is quite common in women right? Joke if you want to...

https://youngwomenshealth.org/2013/10/02/mrkh/

MRKH is a congenital disorder that affects the female reproductive tract. Congenital means that it’s acquired during development and present at birth. About 1 in every 5,000 female babies has this condition.

Girls with MRKH have normal ovaries and fallopian tubes. Most often the uterus is absent or tiny.

---

There’s that, but with this particular guy, a quick bit of research shows him to be a shill for just about anything that caught his fancy.  Before this particular article/advertisement, he had another about how Sargon pills ‘healed’ him from everything ranging from fatigue to constipation (Sargon was nothing but snake oil).  So, that’s three claims of healing - two religious, one pharmaceutical via a known fake medicine.  Moreover, the account Huggy is referencing changed considerably as time passed from the so-called healing:

http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/C...man_Upshaw

It should be noted that the sources I’ve used are sympathetic to miraculous claims.  They think the stories are false, and that Upshaw wasn’t genuine.

Ultimately, there’s no reason to believe any of it.

Ah, referencing believe the sign again I see...

Btw I didn't know that being healed of constipation was an medical imposibility...

https://raycityhistory.wordpress.com/tag/sargon/

By 1933 the Federal Trade Commission had called the G. F. Willis company to task:  [b]the major ingredients of Sargon were grain alcohol and a laxative. In stipulation proceedings, G.F. Willis conceded that it’s advertising of Sargon was misleading.  The Journal of the American Medical Association printed an abstract of the stipulation:[/b]

So a LAXATIVE cured constipation... who would of thought?


From the website you linked.

http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/C...man_Upshaw

William Branham retold the story of Congressman Upshaw's healing many times. However, over time the story changed considerably so that by 1954 it included a vision of a brown suit, and a "Thus Saith The Lord" statement spoken by Brother Branham to William Upshaw directly over the pulpit, and not as communicated by Brother LeRoy Kopp.

Notice a skeptic website (don't let the name fool you) can't deny the event happened, the best they could come up with is that there was some discrepancy between Branham's and Upshaw's telling of the story.

William Branham was a guest speaker at many different churches across the nation, he didn't tell total stranger about visions and things of that nature for understandable reasons, he reserved those details for his home church.

All this show it that you atheists are getting desperate.

---

[Amarok]

No it's in fact huggy who getting desperate

[SteveII]

Now give me examples of things that don't have causes. 

Lest you think you can play around, let's use the same definition of the word:

cause
kôz/
noun

1. 1.
   a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
   

No. Let's not use that definition. Because my entire point is that using the word 'cause' in the KCA is equivocation and conflation. The word is meant to be used as short hand to communicate information quickly. Fine in every day language if I am going to say "Sorry, I caused that explosion", but not precise enough to hang an entire belief system on.

This is because reality is not broken down into discrete events. It is a continuous changing process made up of a myriad of smaller continuous processes. Using the short hand term of 'cause' that is useful for our every day lives when talking about how the universe we currently see came about is conflation and takes the word out of scope.

So let's see the KCA re-written without the use of the word 'cause' in a way that acknowledges that the universe continually changes.

And if you did that then it still wouldn't help because I can even make the same argument for the word 'thing'. When does a thing begin and a thing end?

You are confusing the difficulty in describing a causal chain (and where to stop) with x, y, or z item with a Causal Principle. The fact is that with enough knowledge, you could describe the causal chain for a billion years BECAUSE you believe in a Causal Principle.  The entire enterprise of science is founded on there being a Causal Principle. We rewind history to come up with cosmology models by using a Causal Principle. 

All I need for the argument is there to be a Causal Principle. Are you going to deny there is such a thing?

[KevinM1]

Oh, regarding Hickey's missing uterus, the problem isn't that she may or may not suffer from that problem, it's that you, Huggy, jumped to that conclusion. From what my research has shown, Hickey herself has never said what her problem is/was. There are many conditions that can preclude pregnancy. And some conditions can present as others (misdiagnosis is a thing). So, my mockery of you isn't due to me not believing/knowing the condition exists, but rather you insisting - without any proof - that it's what she was miraculously cured of.

You ASSume a great many things, Huggy. All without cause.

Regarding 'some discrepancy' between the accounts of Upshaw's 'healing', all we have are those two people's accounts of what may or may not have happened. No other 'witnesses' on the record, as far as I can tell (which is amazing since the 'healing' happened immediately in a church service). Moreover, the account went from "Oh, tell that guy I had a vision, and now he's healed" to "I talked to him directly, had a vision of not only his accident, but a brown suit, and other things, plus I removed the other guy (Kopp) from the story completely." And, of course, there's ample photographic evidence of Upshaw standing without his crutches before the event (he was supposed to be wheelchair bound, yet he was getting in and out of convoys and delivering speeches 3-4 times a day).

Again, you're gullible.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, everything is fake.

The guy was a public figure, you can find photographs of him as a young man in a wheel chair, seeing how he received a spinal injury at 18 and spent the next 7 years of his life bedridden, so the best you can do is claim the man has been faking the injury for 66 years?

JFC, Huggy. You can’t possibly be this much of a dolt. Before his Branham days, Upshaw was walking around on two legs getting his supposed cancer miraculously healed by a Brother Ogilvie. Upshaw is a crook and a liar. It took me about ten minutes of research to learn as much.  The only desperate thing here is your credulity.

You’ve been had. These people were con-artists then, and their stories are still conning people like you today; people who want to believe accountings like these are true in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

And Ofc, none of this Hickey/Upshaw business has anything to do with demonstrating with evidence that light in a photo is god.

What you HAVE demonstrated in this thread is your passion for confirmation bias, your complete misunderstanding of the word ‘evidence’, and a total abandonment of critical thinking.

---

Give me a proper definition of what a god is then.

What is it?

Well...it’s God, by definition, duh.

What is it not?

It’s not any of the things that aren’t god. Easy!

What is it made of?

God-stuff!  It’s GOD. We can’t know. Why would you even entertain such a question?!

How can we determine whether something is a god or not a god?

If it’s not made of god-stuff, or if it’s made of stuff that’s not god, then it’s not god. On the other hand, if it’s god, then it’s god. Got anything tougher?

Where do you find it?

In a changeless, timeless place otherwise known as, ‘nowhere, ever.’

What are you talking about, Mathilda!  God is perfectly well-defined!  😝

---

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.

@steve

I just want you to answer this one question, and then I’ll let you have the last word here.  You and Mathilda have a lot going on.

Why should I 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?

[The Grand Nudger]

All I need for the argument is there to be a Causal Principle. Are you going to deny there is such a thing?

Not even remotely true, and you know it, lol.  You think the kca is a good argument for -god-..not a good argument for some causal principle.  If you're going to pretend that you've reasoned your way into something you need to put in the effort. You and I and everyone else on earth agreeing that caused things have causes doesn't even begin that work...but you don't know what to do with agreement, do you?

[Amarok]

Nope the causal principle is not even remotely good enough