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

[Cecelia]

Therefore it is my position that the Norse god Odin is derived from previously held concepts and can reasonably be dismissed as being real.

The Christian god Yahweh is also derived from previously held concepts.  So can he too be reasonably dismissed as being real.  If so, then I concede defeat (to you at least).  If, however, you still hold that God exists then I still maintain that Odin is real.  After all I can simply argue that the similarities from other religions are based in part truth, and part the work of the trickster god and shapeshifter Loki. 

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.

Really?  The same can't be said for God?  So I take it you've been able to make a man out of dirt?  Because last I checked we can have reasonable certainty that the combination of dirt and nothing doesn't make a man.  Nor can you make a woman from Man's rib.  Besides, the fire and ice weren't the fire and ice of our world. Not to mention Genesis says that the Sun is younger than the Earth, yet we can be reasonably certain that the Earth is far younger than the sun. And sure, you can say "It's allegorical." To which I say: "Fire and Ice was just allegorical too."

[Mister Agenda]

The Bible documents the ways by which God has revealed Himself through history, serves as a means through which He can communicate to believers, and has been one of the most important foundations on which Western civilization was built. So yes, it is more than just a book but no one thinks it is a 'magic' book and only a douche would call it that.

In the bolded portion above, you describe a magic book.

[SteveII]

I don't think there is anything in the Bible that couldn't have happened (metaphysically speaking).

I was told that just the other day by a talking donkey and he took offence when I didn't believe that he existed. I tried to argue with him that he was a product of my brain and a shit load of drugs that I had just taken but he tried to convince me that seeing him was itself evidence.

I have to say though, it was more tangible than a temporal lobe seizure and a personal relationship with an invisible presence you cannot hear or touch.

That's your example! It is not metaphysically possible for God to use a donkey to send a message to its obstinate owner? Perhaps the donkey spoke or perhaps Balaam just heard the wise-ass speak. Neither is metaphysically impossible. 

In addition, the Bible narrative has consistent themes throughout that do not contradict each other.

So does Shrek and its sequels. Which incidentally also contains a talking donkey.

You probably don't even know the story--saw it on an internet atheist list of sophomoric objections to Christianity. You're way out of your depth discussing these issues because you just don't know nor understand what you are objecting to (even at a basic level). One of my favorite quotes comes to mind: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

[Succubus]

...Before you go on about Gen 1-3, there are way way way more people that ever lived that believe Gen 1-3 was allegorical in nature than believed it to be literal.

If Gen 1-3 are allegorical you have an immediate problem. Without Adam and Eve there is no original sin so why do we need redemption, why do we need a redeemer?

[The Grand Nudger]

The Bible documents the ways by which God has revealed Himself through history, serves as a means through which He can communicate to believers, and has been one of the most important foundations on which Western civilization was built. So yes, it is more than just a book but no one thinks it is a 'magic' book and only a douche would call it that.

In the bolded portion above, you describe a magic book.

Magic book has a godphone function.  I wonder, does it work under water?  Should I be careful keeping it around magnets?  Whats the range, any interference?  How often do I need to change the battery and can it withstand 7.62?

[Minimalist]

Religitards love magic.  It is their constant fallback position.

[SteveII]

That is a wild generalization that simply is not true. I don't think there is anything in the Bible that couldn't have happened (metaphysically speaking). In addition, the Bible narrative has consistent themes throughout that do not contradict each other. It actually tells one big story that is certainly possible and in a lot of ways, makes sense of the human condition. Is there a parallel to that in Norse mythology? 

Before you go on about Gen 1-3, there are way way way more people that ever lived that believe Gen 1-3 was allegorical in nature than believed it to be literal.

If I recited back to you stories from the OT in their original form would you accept them as true? By original form I mean the ancient Babylonian and Sumerian mythology they are very obviously based on. If I recited back to you the story of Jesus in its original form - the story of Romulus... would accept that as well?

My point here is that the Abrahamic religions are not any different than older religions that we have arbitrarily deemed mythology.

Yeah...you don't know what you are talking about. That line of thinking is compelling to no one except a fringe group with an obvious axe to grind. Go ahead, post the link of at least three books of unrelated parties that make that point and then we can discuss.

[Succubus]

...That's your example! It is not metaphysically possible for God to use a donkey to send a message to its obstinate owner? Perhaps the donkey spoke or perhaps Balaam just heard the wise-ass speak. Neither is metaphysically impossible...

And the trees?

Ju 9:8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.

Ju 9:9 But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

Ju 9:10 And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.

Ju 9:11 But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?

[SteveII]

Before you go on about Gen 1-3, there are way way way more people that ever lived that believe Gen 1-3 was allegorical in nature than believed it to be literal.

That's irrelevant.  What matters is whether the author of Genesis intended it to be taken literally.  It's consistent with both the time period and the genre that he did.  Against that are incredibly weak textual arguments that it was intended as allegory.  The fact that some body of people treat it as allegory is more an artifact of people realizing that holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis puts them in the position of defending things like the flood, which they realize they can't reasonably defend.  It's a tactical retreat, unrelated to the facts of history which are that originally, it was accepted as literal.  You're always going on about how the authors of the gospels "would have known eye witnesses," implying that their proximity to the events is a testament to their historical validity, yet when it comes to Genesis, you implicitly argue against that standard; you seem to have a double standard here.

The first three chapters of Genesis are linguistically different from the rest of Genesis both in style and come from a different time in history (use of older language). So, who was the author? Certainly not the same as the rest of the book.

The context was that there were other creation accounts from other civilization (including the recent 400 years the Jews spent in Egypt) and it is likely that the Jews were passing this one down long before Genesis was written to teach their children the distinctions from other religions: that the world is a created entity (no endowed with its own spirituality) and done so by the monotheistic God they worshiped. The actual Hebrew is poetic and highly structured--which is easier to recite and teach from generation to generation (oral tradition) and clearly not meant to be a science text (since very few science text are written in poetic form).

So, was it 6 days, 6 periods, 6 billion years? Who knows. As long as you believe that God is responsible for the creation of the cosmos and humans are in the image of God, there are a variety of ways you can assemble a systematic theology and still be internally consistent.

[Aegon]

If I recited back to you stories from the OT in their original form would you accept them as true? By original form I mean the ancient Babylonian and Sumerian mythology they are very obviously based on. If I recited back to you the story of Jesus in its original form - the story of Romulus... would accept that as well?

My point here is that the Abrahamic religions are not any different than older religions that we have arbitrarily deemed mythology.

Yeah...you don't know what you are talking about. That line of thinking is compelling to no one except a fringe group with an obvious axe to grind. Go ahead, post the link of at least three books of unrelated parties that make that point and then we can discuss.

Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of Near Eastern history will admit to the glaring similarities but I don't have the time to do that research for you so it ends here I suppose.