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

[vulcanlogician]

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.

Point taken.

(I'm assuming PoE stands for problem of evil, but I'm not sure. If I'm wrong, disregard the rest of this post.)

The problem of evil has very satisfying counterarguments. I no longer use the problem of evil with rational theists because I think it's a bad argument. John Hick put the problem of evil to rest for me a couple years ago. Read his "Vale of Soul-Making Theodicy"-- I couldn't find it free online, though. . But I did find several summaries. If you think the PoE still holds water, you should give it a read.

Men are not to be thought of on the analogy of animal pets, whose life is to be made as agreeable as possible, but rather on the analogy of human children, who are to grow to adulthood in an environment whose primary and overriding purpose is not immediate pleasure but the realizing of the most valuable potentialities of human personality. (EGL, 258)

https://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/#SH3a

It should be noted, however, that Hick's argument doesn't work to support fundamentalist interpretations (it presupposes a non-fundamentalist interpretation of God). But otherwise, Hick puts the problem of evil to rest.

[Succubus]

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?

I wonder is it just possible, that a few of our resident apologists will now finally grasp the concept of non-falsifiable? They may get it now but lets see what next week brings.

An excellent thread btw.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

I don't think she's making any attempt to refute atheistic arguments. So it's not that she's setting up staw men; but rather, giving a laundry list of stupid things many atheists say, in the same way that some Christians say a lot of stupid shit. Any atheist who uses the term 'zombie Jew' or calls the bible a 'magic book' only reveals his or her ignorance, dishonesty, or just basic religious bigotry.

[Aegon]

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.

You dismissed the origin story of Odin as ridiculous not realizing that almost every Biblical story sounds just as ridiculous.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

@OP,
See the great thing about Theists in general is we don't give a swish. No really, if you want to believe in Odin then believe in Odin, that's your personal and private business. As far as whether Odin is real or not.... I don't know.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I no longer use the problem of evil with rational theists because I think it's a bad argument. But otherwise, Hick puts the problem of evil to rest.

It was always an argument from incredulity long before Hicks came along.

[vulcanlogician]

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.

I don't think she's making any attempt to refute atheistic arguments. So it's not that she's setting up staw men; but rather, giving a laundry list of stupid things many atheists say, in the same way that some Christians say a lot of stupid shit. Any atheist who uses the term 'zombie Jew' or calls the bible a "magic book" only reals his or her ignorance, dishonesty, or just basic religious bigotry.

In a vacuum, you would be correct, Neo. But let's face it... terms like "magic book" come about because people on the other side say things like "Holy and Inerrant Word of God" and refer to the Bible as a source of absolute truth.

If you're going to condemn atheists for using the "magic book" pejorative, you need to condemn theists for referring to it as "more than a book," as something beyond reproach as something that is a mortal sin to even doubt.

[Minimalist]

How is that debunked by science?

Dead bodies who have been in graves do not EVER get up and walk into cities and show themselves.  And as I said, we don't really need science for that.  Common sense, of which you have none, will suffice.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@OP,
See the great thing about Theists in general is we don't give a swish.

Then why a big online forum to talk and complain about about the thing you don't care about.

[Huggy Bear]

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

No it isn't, the idea is to show if there more evidence for the existence of Odin or against the existence of Odin.

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.

Do you guys believe that more evidence for Odin has been presented than against?

If so, what evidence has been produced for the existence of Odin?