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

[RoadRunner79]

[GrandizerII]

[RoadRunner79]

You seem to be all over the place here, taking on any and every argument which may suite your purpose.   You do not seem to be making a systematic or coherent case for any particular position (even taking on contradictory positions).  Whether it's sophism or just an aversion to anything which may point to God, you don't seem to be putting forth a rational position, nor making a case against anything I said.

Translation: "I don't like having my favorite argument dismantled from various angles, so I am going to undermine the character of the person dismantling my beloved argument because I can't be bothered addressing his counter-arguments. Hopefully, I come off as smart regardless in the eyes of people reading our exchanges, because that's really what I'm aiming for here."

I would like to point out the following though;


Now I gave the reason why I didn't think that the discussion of how probabilities multiplied was not appropriate (and it had nothing to do with what you made up here).   This is either just blatant intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps poor reading comprehension at best.

Yeah, you tell yourself that. Because we all know how comfortable you are with addressing the maths (judging from recent posting history).

LOL....OK

[GrandizerII]

Translation: "I don't like having my favorite argument dismantled from various angles, so I am going to undermine the character of the person dismantling my beloved argument because I can't be bothered addressing his counter-arguments. Hopefully, I come off as smart regardless in the eyes of people reading our exchanges, because that's really what I'm aiming for here."


Yeah, you tell yourself that. Because we all know how comfortable you are with addressing the maths (judging from recent posting history).

LOL....OK

Serves you right. You are not as bright as you think you are.

[RoadRunner79]

LOL....OK

Serves you right. You are not as bright as you think you are.

Perhaps...   but if you want to make a coherent case for what you are saying, then I will do my best to address it.

If you are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, then I'm not interested.

[GrandizerII]

Serves you right. You are not as bright as you think you are.

Perhaps...   but if you want to make a coherent case for what you are saying, then I will do my best to address it.

If you are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, then I'm not interested.

Throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks is what you do best. Don't make me out to be a troll when you're the king of trolls here.

[Amarok]

Perhaps...   but if you want to make a coherent case for what you are saying, then I will do my best to address it. 

LIKE HELL YOU WILL !!!

[RoadRunner79]

It may be noted, that Grandizers theory is testable.  If I am trying to avoid discussion, then all one would have to do, is present questions or arguments concerning either to what I had said or present an case for what you think is more compelling.  If he is correct, and I want to avoid logical and coherent objections, then it would follow that I would continue to do so.  I will note , that mere disagreement is not avoidance.  If however I don't have issue with interacting with other ideas, then it would seem that the seemingly self serving hypothesis would be false.

I do avoid some topics.  I try to avoid topics that are largely subjective or a matter of opinion.  I may avoid a topic, because I don't think the person will contribute anything of value or has a history of just attacking the person or name calling; rather than thoughtful discussion.  However this is a topic I like. 

By a show of hands, if I said that an elephant suddenly appeared in my back yard (like poof)  without reason.  How many would consider that plausible?

[LadyForCamus]

It seems that you appeal to a number of things as causes in this.  As well, you by nothing (like L. Krauss) you seem to mean something rather than no thing.  Where I would quibble, is that I do not believe that the laws of physics is a thing in and of it self.  It is a description for the logical way in which things behave (Note: not nothing... well  perhaps for some people).  

I'm going to need more than a claim, to drop the belief in causality.  I'm not willing to just take it on faith, because as we can see, there is some equivocating which is sometimes taken advantage of.  Personally, I need a testimony of what was done, what was observed, and then specifics as to how it is determined to be without cause.   For some skeptics I have heard, even the testimony of others would not be enough for such an extraordinary claim.  Some may not believe, if they saw it themselves.  The problem I have, is that this is the type of claim, that involves more than simple observation.

You alleged "god" is supposedly a sentient thing with powers, where did it come from and how did it acquire the powers and the stuff and time make the universe? Where did it exist before it did all that?

Positing a god only adds questions that I have never seen any theist even try to answer.

Oh, all those things are category errors; hence unknowable, remember?  Except for when we’re arguing the KCA, that is.  ?

---

By a show of hands, if I said that an elephant suddenly appeared in my back yard (like poof)  without reason.  How many would consider that plausible?

*sigh*

It’s like the last 15 pages never happened and we have to start all over.  I imagine this is why atheists get bored with debating after a while.

[RoadRunner79]

It seems that you appeal to a number of things as causes in this.  As well, you by nothing (like L. Krauss) you seem to mean something rather than no thing.  Where I would quibble, is that I do not believe that the laws of physics is a thing in and of it self.  It is a description for the logical way in which things behave (Note: not nothing... well  perhaps for some people).  

I'm going to need more than a claim, to drop the belief in causality.  I'm not willing to just take it on faith, because as we can see, there is some equivocating which is sometimes taken advantage of.  Personally, I need a testimony of what was done, what was observed, and then specifics as to how it is determined to be without cause.   For some skeptics I have heard, even the testimony of others would not be enough for such an extraordinary claim.  Some may not believe, if they saw it themselves.  The problem I have, is that this is the type of claim, that involves more than simple observation.

You alleged "god" is supposedly a sentient thing with powers, where did it come from and how did it acquire the powers and the stuff and time make the universe? Where did it exist before it did all that?

Positing a god only adds questions that I have never seen any theist even try to answer.

So far, we have only been discussing that the universe has a cause. 

But a common objection is that everything needs to have a cause then.  This is why the premise is formulated as "that which begins to exist".  For something which didn't begin to exist, it is nonsense to require and explanation for that beginning (which did not occur).   Similarly, God's power would not be something which is traditionally understood to be acquired.  So to ask how it was acquired would be a non-sense question. 

Also, while the idea of God may invoke a number of questions, and we may not have answers for all of them; the KCA is making specific claims, of which it is saying that the classically understood God of theism best fits as an explanation to those attributes.