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

[The Grand Nudger]

There are, necessarily, more fantasies we could rationalize than fantasies which would be informative to our realty.

[I_am_not_mafia]

There are, necessarily, more fantasies we could rationalize than fantasies which would be informative to our realty.

Exactly. Which gets back to GIGO. You could use Stevell's argument to rationalise believing that a Boltzmann brain connected to a giant anus farted the universe into existence. It would be as equally invalid.

[Amarok]

No, one can't argue that. The novel or symphony is not made out of the same material as the brain or paper. They have not material cause. Only efficient causes. You are not arguing with me on some sort of interpretation. You are arguing with established definitions. 

Requiring material objects to exist is just a feature of our universe.

Abstract objects are mental/mind-based, so one could argue that they have a material cause in the "mind material". But it doesn't matter either way, because material objects that begin to exist must require material causes (per the outdated Aristotelian logic). And even Aristotle himself argued that the universe/world must be eternal. In fact, the argument I presented earlier is virtually the same as the argument presented by Aristotle.

Or we could just accept they don't have an existence of their own and are the product of our brain like we know they are. No matter how much theists want to make them a spooky otherly substance to save the god pixie from falling on their own reasoning .

[The Grand Nudger]

There are, necessarily, more fantasies we could rationalize than fantasies which would be informative to our realty.

Exactly. Which gets back to GIGO. You could use Stevell's argument to rationalise believing that a Boltzmann brain connected to a giant anus farted the universe into existence. It would be as equally invalid.

Sure, but what's "steves argument" anyway?  That caused things have causes and some causes are different than other causes?  Psh,  tell us something that we don't know.  Hell, you don't even need a silly ass argument to convince anyone of that.....

[Huggy Bear]

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.

*emphasis mine*

It's a fact the man has been on crutches for 66 years, if you want to maintain that he was faking a disability the whole time (which is highly irrational), then you're going to have to prove it.

Also how about posting up your sources?

[JackRussell]

Huggy, I believe your God is real.

Sorry.

[LadyForCamus]

Steve wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants god to be unexplainable and unknowable when it suits his case; i.e. when someone asks him what god is made of and how he acts, with reference to known laws of physics. But, when he needs the universe to be caused by something separate from it in order to make his case, suddenly we can know all sorts of things about reality beyond our locality.

See, this is what happens when theists start at their conclusion and reason backwards. When Steve mentions, ‘what might be outside of our universe’ with regard to the KCA, we already know he is talking about god. Put simply; he’s equivocating. Theists pretend KCA is an inductive argument which uses probable truths about the nature of reality to reach a conclusion that god exists. Quite the opposite, in fact:

They start with: “what features of reality would need to be true in order to reach our conclusion that god is responsible for it?” And then, “can we make a case for the logical possibility of these features?”

Maybe you can, but you certainly can’t make a case for the probability of them; not without actual data. And not after you’ve clearly stated that the features of GOD, aka, ‘what lies beyond our universe’, are categorically separate, and unknowable. I don’t see any way around the composition fallacy, so why bother going further than that?

[SteveII]

Yes but why would you exclude things outside of our universe?

Because not doing so would be a composition fallacy, lol. What a silly question.

 The Principle of Sufficient Reason or even just any basic causal principle justifies thinking that causation is a feature of any possible reality. What argument do you think would be successful in undercutting this premise to a point to think it is probably not true (since this is an inductive argument).

No. You don’t get to ‘logic’ into existence the scientific underpinnings of reality.  This argument fails at premise 1.  Full Stop.  You have no way of demonstrating that it is more likely true than not true.  

2. The universe began to exist. This is fine, though it isn't necessarily true.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. This does not follow because premise 1 is not necessarily true of the entire universe--composition fallacy.

It does follow unless you can show that (1) is unlikely true. Can you?

He doesn’t have to.  You need to demonstrate that it is more likely true than not true, and with some actual evidence.  Philosophy alone isn’t going to cut it. 

That is the ONLY option. You cannot talk about "scientific" for things prior to the first moments of the universe. Full Stop. All of our intuitions about reality (not just our universe) screams out a causal principle. There is no way around this and for this reason alone, Premise (1) is more likely true than not. 

(1) The premise does not limit itself to the universe or reason from experiences within the universe. You are imposing a limit, not me. The argument claims that it is a general principle, a feature of existence, an obvious metaphysical truth.

It’s true because it’s obvious?  That’s a pretty tight circle, right there.

Steve, the problem (as I see it) with your reasoning throughout this thread, and your debate style in general, is this:

You flip your position on what is knowable beyond our universe depending on which argument is being discussed.  So, when atheists appeal to facts about our observable universe to explain how your god (as he’s often described) can’t logically or scientifically exist, it’s a category error.  He’s supernatural.  We’re making a mistake in our reasoning when we try to apply truths about our known reality to god, and the unknowable state he exists in.

But then out the other side of your mouth, whenever premise 1. of the KCA comes up, atheists are ‘placing unnecessary restrictions’ on what we can know about reality beyond our universe.  All of a sudden you can make predictions, have certain knowledge of “obvious truths”, and reason your way across an obvious category distinction.  We don’t have to provide a defeator for premise 1. because you already did.  It’s a category error. Those are your words.  

So, which is it?

Regarding your first point about category error, yes--comparing God to physical laws is an obvious and silly category error and shouldn't be done. This is not that.

Regarding you second point, is there any reason whatsoever to think that causal principles only apply within the universe? Why are scientist talking about string theory, multiverses, etc.? Because they seem to think there is such a thing. Why? Because it seems like an objective feature of reality--no matter what physical conditions you find yourself in. These are the points you must answer to be successful in refuting the KCA--not complaining that you can't win after bringing up weak arguments.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

*emphasis mine*

It's a fact the man has been on crutches for 66 years, if you want to maintain that he was faking a disability the whole time (which is highly irrational), then you're going to have to prove it.

Also how about posting up your sources?

I’m not saying the man wasn’t on crutches.  I’m saying there is more than enough reasonable doubt that this wasn’t a ‘miracle healing’. 

The picture of William Upshaw that has been painted into the minds of William Branham's followers is that of a frail, old man who was destined to a crippled life in a wheelchair. William Branham often mentions how the Congressman was so bad off that he had to be wheeled around, carried on beds, and practically unable to function. But in the newspapers, we find Upshaw travelling around in convoys of automobiles, walking around freely using his crutches, and speaking to multiple audiences per day -- both for policical speeches and evangelistic sermons. And those who paid close attention in the United States Congress noticed that something was not quite right with his stride while using crutches. It appears that the Congressman was using his crutches as a prop, often running through the floor without touching them to the ground.

In a 1915 article in the Shreveport Times, Upshaw claims that his bedridden state lasted only seven years. In fact, he claimed that it had been twenty years prior when he used a wheelchair.  

"The name of 'Earnest Willie' was given me when I was on bed for seven years dictating letters for the papers, and it stayed by me for a while nearly twenty years ago when I used to lecture from a rolling chair, but now I am a man -- the editor of one paper, the husband of one wife and the daddy of a red-headed baby girl and I guess it is time for me to be called the husband of Mrs. William D. Upshaw." 
- Congressman William D. Upshaw, The Times, Sat May 8, 1915.

Later, in July of 1949, Voice of Healing published an article written by Upshaw describing his healing by "Brother Ogilvie" of cancer. Upshaw mentions many healed, including lame walking, but makes no mention of his physical condition. Was he trying first to promote "Brother Ogilvie?" When that promotion failed, did Upshaw and Davis decide to promote Branham? 

Why did William Branham paint this picture in his descriptions of the Congressman. And why did the congressman support these stories as he frequented the Branham meeting?

http://seekyethetruth.com/branham/resour...pshaw.aspx

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*

It's a fact the man has been on crutches for 66 years, if you want to maintain that he was faking a disability the whole time (which is highly irrational), then you're going to have to prove it.

Also how about posting up your sources?

I’m not saying the man wasn’t on crutches.  I’m saying there is more than enough reasonable doubt that this wasn’t a ‘miracle healing’. 

The picture of William Upshaw that has been painted into the minds of William Branham's followers is that of a frail, old man who was destined to a crippled life in a wheelchair. William Branham often mentions how the Congressman was so bad off that he had to be wheeled around, carried on beds, and practically unable to function. But in the newspapers, we find Upshaw travelling around in convoys of automobiles, walking around freely using his crutches, and speaking to multiple audiences per day -- both for policical speeches and evangelistic sermons. And those who paid close attention in the United States Congress noticed that something was not quite right with his stride while using crutches. It appears that the Congressman was using his crutches as a prop, often running through the floor without touching them to the ground.

In a 1915 article in the Shreveport Times, Upshaw claims that his bedridden state lasted only seven years. In fact, he claimed that it had been twenty years prior when he used a wheelchair.  

"The name of 'Earnest Willie' was given me when I was on bed for seven years dictating letters for the papers, and it stayed by me for a while nearly twenty years ago when I used to lecture from a rolling chair, but now I am a man -- the editor of one paper, the husband of one wife and the daddy of a red-headed baby girl and I guess it is time for me to be called the husband of Mrs. William D. Upshaw." 
- Congressman William D. Upshaw, The Times, Sat May 8, 1915.

Later, in July of 1949, Voice of Healing published an article written by Upshaw describing his healing by "Brother Ogilvie" of cancer. Upshaw mentions many healed, including lame walking, but makes no mention of his physical condition. Was he trying first to promote "Brother Ogilvie?" When that promotion failed, did Upshaw and Davis decide to promote Branham? 

Why did William Branham paint this picture in his descriptions of the Congressman. And why did the congressman support these stories as he frequented the Branham meeting?

http://seekyethetruth.com/branham/resour...pshaw.aspx

Upon perusal of the July 1949 Voice of Healing magazine, I can find no article written by Upshaw, let alone any that mention him being healed of cancer.
Though I could be mistaken, look for yourself.

https://issuu.com/cfnthevoice/docs/july_1949

*edit*
I see the article. He does mention that he had a cancerous growth on the side of his head, which he was getting radiation treatments for... was prayed for and healed.

Again, if you're going to call him a liar, you have to bring some proof.