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

[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?