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]

First, I am not asking you to accept anything.

Correct.  Sloppy choice of words on my part.  I know that you, as an individual, aren’t trying to convince me.  

My opinion is that the proposition of god as an answer, should be wholly unsatisfying to the human mind.  The positing of an entity, the substance and mechanics of which, by its very definition are not explainable, isn’t an actual explanation.  An answer that generates exponentially more questions in its wake should be considered woefully inadequate. To me, such a proposition is a placeholder for the unknown, not an explanation of it.

I agree with you that descriptions like, “cannot be known”, and “does not require an explanation” are internally consistent with the definition of god. My point is, why would anyone accept a not-explainable thing as an answer?  I don’t understand this line of reasoning at all.

While some properties of God are unknowable, some are not. He has reveals a great deal about himself in both the OT and the NT. Here is a great list.  There is also a ton of things we can infer from known characteristics (the result of a process of systematic theology). 

Second, you use the word 'demonstrate'. I have listed countless times reasons why people believe there is a God. These reasons 'demonstrate' the concept to be rationale. You cannot say any of them are false. So what you are actually saying is that these reasons (as you understand them--which is a very important point) haven't met your standards to believe. That's fine. But what you cannot say is that I have not demonstrated...period.

Oh, come now, Steve.  You know as well as I do that demonstrating a logical argument for the concept of an entity is not the same thing as demonstrating the entity itself.  You, yourself have said that you cannot logically argue things into existence.

You continue to ignore the fact that I have a list of real life reasons to think the concept is true. So, I have not argued anything into existence. I believe historical testimony, other people's testimony whom I have personally encountered, and my own experiences. These are all real things. 

There is nothing incoherent about the God of Christianity. If you think so, I will need a specific point to address.

What he’s made of, and how he functions are unknowable and not explainable.  Those are your words.

'Unknowable' properties is not same meaning as 'incoherent'.

---

If the God of Christianity exists, he would be the explanation of all our reality -- it follows by definition.

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.

[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 ?

[Silver]

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

He provided this list above:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribut...ristianity

[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]

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

He provided this list above:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribut...ristianity

Oh yes I'm aware of any list which may be produced, of his own making or others. But that's knowing about god in the same way as I know that superman comes from krypton, and that he's as tough as steel, and he can fly, I don't actually take that knowledge and believe that superman actually exists.

Putting forward a known list of attributes, definitions and theology does not help us discern if we should take knowing about god seriously. In other words how can we discern if those attributes are real or not ?

[SteveII]

First, like I said before, all that is needed for this premise is a causal principle.

And please explain why all that is needed for this premise is a causal principle rather than name dropping philosophical terms that can be used to magic into existence a non existent being through logic alone. That way .... <drum roll> we can examine your working and test each assumption rather than apply some off the shelf armchair philosophy to create an excuse to allow you to believe what the hell you like.

You condescension is unwarranted. You are attempting to debate way above your abilities. I don't mind helping you practice (and this goes for LFC too), but the attitude that you continue with makes you look worse than if you just asked/answered straight. Condescension speaks to character. 

To answer your question, it seems that a firm feature of reality is that being can only come from being. For every contingent condition there is an explanation for that condition. To undercut or defeat Premise (1) you need to deal with this in a logical manner--not just express your dissatisfaction with, or show your ignorance of terminology. 

Second, your rewriting significantly reduces the scope of the premise by making it about things inside the universe. This makes it useless to talk about things outside the universe.

But this is precisely what the KCA does that you like so much

The KCA is an argument that applies to all reality. Not just our laws of physics that started a finite time ago. The way an argument works is that you have to show why the premises are wrong. You have done nothing of the sort. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.

Everything inside the universe begins to exist so everything outside the universe must also begin to exist. That's 2 / 3 of your argument right there. Why is it any different for a continuous version compared to a discrete version of the argument?

All you have done in your attempt to address this is describe that matter/energy change in states over time. The fact that we can follow all the states of matter/energy backwards to explain each state by examining the prior state supports  Premise (1). You think that because it is a process that somehow changes the concept. It does not. At all. The causal principle is alive an well. 

All the causes/effects processes that we can observe today can, with enough knowledge, be traced to the beginning of the universe. There, all the causes/effects come together and require just one cause. That is the point of this argument. What is the nature of this one cause. If you want to believe a multiverse exists, all that does is push it back but does not escape the argument. 

Nope. There is no such thing as a partial universe, partial spacetime or even a partial singularity. There are only two choices: the universe came into being or the universe always was. 

Agreed. So is it 4a, 4b or 4c for the environment of the universe?

4a: came about in an instant
4b: has always existed unchanging
4c: has always existed but continually changes.

You have logical problems with anything material "always existing". You cannot have a series of causes/effects going back forever because you can't complete an actual infinity of steps (which is what you have to have done to get up to the present). There would always be more steps on the front end of this chain of events that would have to happen. 

The KCA provides an argument for 4b. 

And that very last sentence is your problem. This is not a question of science. It is a metaphysical question. Now we can use science in support of or to undercut a premise, but this is not a science problem. You have got to learn the difference as well as learn the limitations of science or you will keep stumbling on this stuff.

Sorry. I forgot that you can't differentiate between reality and your armchair philosophy.

Metaphysics right. OK, that means imaginary physics which is undetectable and can only be discerned by mental masturbation.

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

Sigh...I guess you prefer to keep stumbling along...with gusto...

Did it ever dawn on you that the scientific method is based in a philosophy of science?  Science actually presupposes philosophy. Read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Believing that all of reality is subject to the scientific methods is silly nonsense long dismissed (which is exactly what your last sentence means). Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

---

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?

You have set up a false dichotomy. It is not one of the other. There is no argument you could make to even suggest it.

---

---

He provided this list above:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribut...ristianity

Oh yes I'm aware of any list which may be produced, of his own making or others. But that's knowing about god in the same way as I know that  superman comes from krypton, and that he's as tough as steel, and he can fly, I don't actually take that knowledge and believe that superman actually exists.

Putting forward a known list of attributes, definitions and theology does not help us discern if we should take knowing about god seriously.  In other words how can we discern if those attributes are real or not ?

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.

[Angrboda]

...it seems that a firm feature of reality is that being can only come from being.

Please explain what you mean by being coming from being and give an example. I'm aware that in quantum mechanics there is the concept of uncaused events and that existence essentially means collapse of the wave function, without which the being of something is indeterminate (see Bernard D'espagnat on Bell's inequalities, HERE), but neither of those appear related to what you are claiming. There is, I believe, some support that new particles can appear out of nothing, but since that is ex nihilo, that would actually be a contradiction to your claim. Then there is the existence of virtual particles, but that again seems more like a refutation of your claim rather than a confirmation. Aside from that, as far as I know, matter has never been observed to have been created or destroyed, so I am not aware of any example from reality in which matter literally came from matter unless that matter is just a reconfiguration of previously existing matter. But that would make your phrase "being can only come from being" only true in the figurative or metaphorical sense, and if that is the sense in which you are interpreting statements such as "began to exist" then you seem to have some equivocation going on. So what do you actually mean by being "coming from" being?

[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 ?