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

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

If it's real then why shouldn't we be able to investigate it using the scientific method?

The answer to this question falls into that, ‘awfully convenient for real problems in my arguments’ category of:

We don’t know; we can’t know; that’s just how god works!

How nice that people take the liberty of filling gaps in their reasoning with little more than air pockets.

I wonder how many theists would acknowledge the agnosticism that precedes the last part of that statement and be willing to admit that their religious faith/belief does not have all of the answers.

[Ravenshire]

Steve is trying his best to take this thread off topic while i'm trying to give atheists that work...

Seeing how I have made my case for why Odin cannot exist based upon evidence that he is a character based upon ancient pagan Babylonian religion, and that no evidence of Odin's existence has been presented PERIOD, I have no other choice but to declare myself the victor according to the predefined criteria.

How about this... I present evidence that Odin exists and you present evidence that Odin does not exist and we'll judge based on who has the most evidence for and against.

Since more evidence has been presented against Odin than in Odin's favor, Cecelia loses her argument.

And on that note, I'm getting on up outta this thread...

Prove nothing. Declare self winner.

Typical Huggies.

[SteveII]

[possibletarian]

You have a real problem with reading comprehension. I never said God would be unknowable. There are a thousand things we know about God.

Really, can you name one thing that you 'know' about god, and how you know ?

[Kitan Etos]

[I_am_not_mafia]

But not much of an explanation because your god would be unknowable.

You have a real problem with reading comprehension. I never said God would be unknowable. There are a thousand things we know about God.

Yes you did.

In fact, if God exists, the very nature of God entails that we cannot comprehend very much--so the correct description is actually unknowable by us.

And the reason it is important is because you claim that your god is the best (sometimes only excellent) explanation:

3. If God exists, then God is the best explanation of the universe (from Occam's razor, PSR)

3. If God exists, he is an excellent explanation of the universe. This is not a point you are going to win. There is no debate here.

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.

So how can your god be the best (or excellent) explanation if it is completely or partially unknowable?

You are wanting your cake and eat it. Is your god the best explanation or is it only partially unknowable?

[possibletarian]

[SteveII]

[Angrboda]

[possibletarian]

If the God of Christianity exists, then the Bible certainly contains information (no matter your position on inerrantcy) about God. You are confusing proving God with knowing his attributes if he does exist. They are not the same task.

Yes its a good list of definitions, but nothing more. All you seem to be proving is that Christianity has made a better a good job of creating a list of definitions that may be true if a god existed, though of course there are continued problem with the interpretation of what the scripture actually means in many places.

It would be easy to define a completely new entity that would better fit  the world we see around us though, we could make one up who loved misery and was mischievous (in fact many early religions did)  We could define a creator god who from the start created using evolution. A god who caused the known universe from existing matter via manipulation, in fact we could add many modifications to our 'god definition'  to make it a more likely god than Yahweh. We could even make up a god who caused people to believe in many gods all of them lies including Yahweh. All these better fit the world we see around us.

But such things would be completely meaningless and remain an exercise of the mind unless we could actually prove the god behind the definitions existed, a list of definitions proves only that you have a list of definitions. I guess what we are really asking is what even makes you think your definitions are true ?