>Unless I'm mistaking you, you did. The question posed was
>"can you (forget who it was addressed to) prove that
>lightening does NOT come from Thor?"
>
>The answer to this question is obviously, no, it can't be
>proven

No that is not obviously the answer.

>But you responded to the effect of "sure - thor's not detected
>by doppler".

No, I said Thor's hammer is not detected by radar.

>Therefore you did say something about that.
>And your pressupposed/assumed/implicit premise is "gods are
>empirically observable"

No. My premise is not that "gods" are empirically observable. I am dealing with one specific god here.

>Which, I pointed out, was a completely useless premise when
>discussing a "creator god".

But we weren't discussing a "creator god" in this instance, we were discussing a thunder god.

>They weren't ignored =) Just not responded to.

Why not? You responded to everything else.

>I'm doing a
>lot of reading, and when I come across something interesting I
>post it. As I've said, I'm a philosopher and not a scientist,
>so finding some of the objections to the "old earth theory"
>(which again, I ACCEPT!) intriguing is not only forgivable,
>but I would think, encouraged.

It's not forgivable when you claim that it is "suppressed evidence" proving some anti-god conspiracy in the scientific community, when you don't understand the science and have no basis to make such claims. Particularly when the "science" behind what you post is just flat-out wrong.

And just because you ponder these questions doesn't make you a philosopher.

>Let's see:
>1) whatever causes lightening is entirely explained
>scientifically

I didn't say that (even though it's true)

>2) doppler is entirely effective for detecting said "causes"

I didn't say that.

>3) some believe that thor, a god of lightening, exists

I didn't say that. And I don't even think the Asatru (aka Odinists - modern-day followers of old Norse religion) really believe that Thor literally exists.

>4) thor is not detected by doppler.

I didn't say that either.

>Therefore
>5) Thor is not the cause of lightening.
>
>Is that we're were at? I wanna see if you agree on the
>syllogism before examining it.

That's where you're at maybe, but that's not where I'm at. Thor created thunder with his hammer Mjolnir; when he threw it at something the strike of the hammer caused thunderclaps (didn't you read comics as a kid?)

Now, if there was indeed a hammer flying around striking things and causing thunder, that would be detectable, wouldn't it? You are over-analyzing a very simple argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!