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

[The Valkyrie]

LOL, if magic book is upset that I call it names- it can strike me with lightning, or send a plague of frogs, or whatever it's supposed to be able to do.  If magic book worshipers, instead, want to bitch...well, I find their idolatry less than compelling.  

@steve

The point of -all- mythology is to offer an explanation of the human condition.  It's senseless to ask if any particular mythology does what they all collectively do.  This, ofc, tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not the divine objects of their attention exist beyond the boundary of the story.

I don't think I've ever called it a magic book.

I usually refer to it as "the big book of contradictory fairy tales".

[SteveII]

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."

You miss the entire point. With God creating mankind, we have all four types of causes present: material, formal, efficient, and final cause. See? Metaphysically sound. 

With Odin's parents, you have...what...a material cause? Fire and Ice...allegorically. Do I really need to point out that you will not be able to keep this comparison up?

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

Actually the idea of fire and ice is at least more thermodynamically plausible. It is on the edge of chaos that interesting things such as life happens. Too little energy and nothing happens. Too much energy and no structures can persist for long and you just have chaos.

Conversely an eternal god is thermodynamically implausible for two reasons. First it violates the second law of thermodynamics because entropy can never decrease in an isolated system and no process is 100% efficient. Secondly, the formation of intelligence is best explained as a thermodynamic process.

[SteveII]

...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?

Are you really that dense? Have you ever read the passage and the context? The section is even titled: Jotham's Parable.

[Succubus]

I knew what it was dickweed I just like winding up fundies.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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. 

What does metaphysical even mean?

It's a bullshit term that has no bearing or relevance to reality.

A natural donkey is physically unable to speak. Arguing anything else is just an academic method of make-believe.

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."

On the contrary, I have seen all the Shrek films!

Anyway, I wasn't actually being entirely serious. I have never hallucinated a talking donkey nor would I take drugs to bring that about. But the point still stands. Products of the brain sensed only by one person and not objectively measured by a third party or an instrument is not evidence no matter how real it seems.

[haig]

There is only one answer to the Odin/god question.

Odin is god.

[SteveII]

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.

Actually the idea of fire and ice is at least more thermodynamically plausible. It is on the edge of chaos that interesting things such as life happens. Too little energy and nothing happens. Too much energy and no structures can persist for long and you just have chaos.

Conversely an eternal god is thermodynamically implausible for two reasons. First it violates the second law of thermodynamics because entropy can never decrease in an isolated system and no process is 100% efficient. Secondly, the formation of intelligence is best explained as a thermodynamic process.

Are you really going with "God is not thermodynamically plausible". Really?!? If God exists, you do understand that entails him having created the universe, right? Then to use a physical law within that universe to apply to him is a step beyond...I'll be nice...nonsense.

[Minimalist]

Are you really going with "God is not thermodynamically plausible".

I'll go with this.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Are you really going with "God is not thermodynamically plausible". Really?!? If God exists, you do understand that entails him having created the universe, right? Then to use a physical law within that universe to apply to him is a step beyond...I'll be nice...nonsense.

It only seems nonsense to you because you do not understand the nature of intelligence. How can your god exist or think without being constrained by the laws of Thermodynamics? After all, for your god to be relevant he has to be able to interact with this world and therefore work within the same laws.

And before you use the argument of a programmer and a computer simulation, both the programmer and the computer exist in the same reality.