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

[vulcanlogician]

Huggy, you have failed to produce a satisfying argument that disproves Odin. But that's not your fault. It can't be done. That's the whole point of this thread.

The existence of Odin is a non-falsifiable hypothesis--just like "the Jesus hypothesis." Because both of these hypotheses are non-falsifiable, no amount of evidence can demonstrate that they do or do not exist.

You can't disprove Odin. Why not just give this one to the heathens?

[Jenny A]

Sorry, the point was how very different in  both detail and world view the Norse are from the Greeks.  Just who in Norse mythology would you trace back to Adonis?  If you can't link the Norse to Adonis, tracing Adonis to Babylonian is irrelevant.

Easy enough.

http://www.academia.edu/6376330/The_Hebr..._Etymology

Here we report that there is no need to invent *Wodinaz and similar words to “explain” the origin and meaning of the theonym Odin. Odin’s representations with one eye provide the key to his name: Odin’s one eye is the code for his name, “One I.” “One” in Hebrew is echad, and “I” in ani. Echad ani — i.e., Odin or Adonai — in the Magyar language is egy én, meaning “one I” or “one self.”

The Old Church Slavonic ѥдинъ (jedin), “one”, and Russian один (odin), "one", are related to the Magyar egy én, "one I".

The significance of echad, egy, jedin, odin – i.e., “one” – in Odin’s name is indicated in Deuteronomy 6:4:

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

The finding that Odin means “one I” or “one self” is significant because it indicates that Odin was by no means a pagan god, but the God of Israel, who is “one.”

What happened to Adonis?

The one argument is flimsy. . That the word one is similar across all indo-European languages does not mean that thier myths are related merely because the all use the word one. Indo European languages share many words. In Odins case one eye and only one eye is why Odin is one, not because like El he is singular. El is one because he is the one and only god. "Thus hear o Isreal the Lord our God is one." Odin is one of many, the head of a group. He is not even the ruler of that group. The Norse Gods decide by consensus after discussion and debate.

He created the world, but he didn't do it single handed. He had help from his brothers. Similarly, he created people, but his siblings clothes them and taught them.


But, even if Odin were a variation of other myths that does not make him non-existent. All of the myths have some truth. But Odin is the correct one. It's lack miraculous help for mankind, and it's vision of the end of all this that make that clear.

Besides, I just know Odin exists because I feel him.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Side note: I found an article here 

Thank you for that link. Sounds like she's spent some time on AF. She sure summed up the annoying 90% of AF.

The thing is, when talking to some theists, they are obviously talking about a god which does not compare to pagan deities. Yet, for the most part--when speaking to a colloquial Christian, for instance, they are obviously not talking about the god of the philosophers.

Not necessarily. People who talk about the sun rising in the East still know that the Earth actually resolves. In the back of their minds most Christians know that it all goes back to Exodus 3:14 and John 1:1 even when talking about God in more anthropomorphic ways and even if they don't know the exact theology.

[Joods]

Well, Wooters, if "90% of AF is annoying" as you say it is, why don't you do 90% of us a favor and just leave?

It's a win-win for AF and you.

[vulcanlogician]

Thank you for that link. Sounds like she's spent some time on AF. She sure summed up the annoying 90% of AF.

I figured you'd like the cut of her jibe . But seriously, she accuses atheists of intellectual dishonesty by poking holes in their arguments. Even assuming all the arguments she lists are weak (she strawmans quite a bit), this doesn't mean the person making them is intellectually dishonest.

To me, intellectual dishonesty is putting forward an argument that you yourself understand has no substance. For example, telling someone that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics when the person making the argument knows that it doesn't. That is intellectual dishonesty. If making weak or faulty arguments means one is intellectually dishonest, then Plato and Aristotle are intellectually dishonest. News flash: they aren't.

[Succubus]

The problem I have with apologists is they're equivocate back and forth between a bland deist like god and the Abrahamic god so fast it's like they don't even realize they're doing it.

And then there's the fraudsters like WLC, who know exactly how fallacious they are being.

It's very easy for this thoroughly dishonest tactic to go unnoticed this is why it's vital to have them state up front which god it is they are proposing, that way tangents are eliminated. It won't stop them trying of course.

[SteveII]

Huggy, you have failed to produce a satisfying argument that disproves Odin. But that's not your fault. It can't be done. That's the whole point of this thread.

The existence of Odin is a non-falsifiable hypothesis--just like "the Jesus hypothesis." Because both of these hypotheses are non-falsifiable, no amount of evidence can demonstrate that they do or do not exist.

You can't disprove Odin. Why not just give this one to the heathens?

Falsification is a scientific principle and does not apply here. What you mean is that no one can prove a negative. I agree. However that does not mean that one cannot have positive knowledge that supports the non-existence of Odin (or God for that matter).

For example, we can have reasonable certainty that the combination of Fire and Ice made drips that became giants and then they had children and one of them was Odin probably did not happen. So, we can offer metaphysical and historical defeaters to any combination of claims that Odin existed--making the cumulative case for his existence highly unlikely.

However, the same cannot be said for God. There are really no good arguments against the existence of God. The best one is the PoE--but even that has satisfactory philosophical counter-arguments. Hiddeness? Again, that has answers. You might not find them compelling, but the point is there is not any good positive arguments against the existence of God.

[Succubus]

People are misdiagnosed all the time.

I have posted similar things myself to show how common it is that people are not as dead as they seemed.

Which leads us to how jesus.
What were the credentials of the dr who declared him dead. How thorough was the investigation? Does the bible list his doctorate or even his name? (if any of it happened of course).

Have you ever considered that in Roman times medicine was not as exacting as it is now and yet people are still misdiagnosed as dead. How less reliable studies in ancient times on criminals.

I think it's hilarious that Huggy is trying to equate a modern day case of misdiagnosis and an untold number of guys buried in tombs for; how many years?

[Jenny A]

Huggy, you have failed to produce a satisfying argument that disproves Odin. But that's not your fault. It can't be done. That's the whole point of this thread.

The existence of Odin is a non-falsifiable hypothesis--just like "the Jesus hypothesis." Because both of these hypotheses are non-falsifiable, no amount of evidence can demonstrate that they do or do not exist.

You can't disprove Odin. Why not just give this one to the heathens?

Falsification is a scientific principle and does not apply here. What you mean is that no one can prove a negative. I agree. However that does not mean that one cannot have positive knowledge that supports the non-existence of Odin (or God for that matter).

For example, we can have reasonable certainty that the combination of Fire and Ice made drips that became giants and then they had children and one of them was Odin probably did not happen. So, we can offer metaphysical and historical defeaters to any combination of claims that Odin existed--making the cumulative case for his existence highly unlikely.

However, the same cannot be said for God. There are really no good arguments against the existence of God. The best one is the PoE--but even that has satisfactory philosophical counter-arguments. Hiddeness? Again, that has answers. You might not find them compelling, but the point is there is not any good positive arguments against the existence of God.

The standard here is to prove Odin does not exist, not just to demonstrate that he is highly unlikely.

So, you think fire and ice can't make a giant? You are disregarding the fact that it didn't happen in this world. It happened in Niflheim. Who knows what biological laws apply in Niflheim? The fire came from the everlasting growing fires of yet another world, Muspell. That's no ordinary ice or fire.

Then again, perhaps his creation story is wrong or merely allegorical. He's still possible, just not very possible. Rather like a God who separated the waters front the waters with a firmament we call the sky. Or added the sun and moon after creating day and night. Or made people our of dust. If the Hebrews had known more about biology they'd have chosen water. There's more water to us than use about anything else. ----Hey, ice is frozen water, what do you know?

[Astreja]

(sits on sidelines, munching popcorn with the Alfaðir) Popp, Pabbi?