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

[SteveII]

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.

None of this actually answers the objection.  Your speculations about what was 'likely', or what it 'clearly' is are just speculation.  Like a typical fundamentalist, you like to poison the well by the inclusion of unjustified adjectives.  Regardless, there is a clear history of people originally taking Genesis as literal, which isn't answered by anything you've said.

Sure it answers your objections. Clearly there are a bunch of reasons within the text itself that support a non-literal meaning. Since there are no period writings or references that tell us otherwise, the text itself is all we have to go on. The fact that any group of people at any time believed it to be literal is easily explained by not having the hermeneutics or exegetical knowledge/skills/awareness to properly examine what they always had in front of them OR some other reason for believing a literal interpretation not directly associated with the text in question OR having no basic understanding of physics and nature, did not even contemplate there could have been another interpretation. None of these external reasons lock us into anything regarding the text.

---

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental questions, including the nature of concepts like being, existence, and reality.[1] It has two branches – cosmology and ontology. Traditional metaphysics seeks to answer, in a "suitably abstract and fully general manner", the questions:[2]

1. What is there?
2. And what is it like?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

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

That is a very ignorant response. From the "contents" box on the article above, tell me why these have no bearing on "reality":

2.1 Ontology (Being)
2.2 Identity and change
2.3 Causality and time
2.4 Necessity and possibility
2.5 Cosmology and cosmogony
2.6 Mind and matter
2.7 Determinism and free will

It is entirely possible that if there is a God, such things can happen.

How?

Because it can be reasoned to from the simple statement: if God exists, he can do things. Can you defeat that logic?

---

You are confusing cause and effect. While the effect will be seen in accordance with the laws of nature, that in no way means that the cause has to be. Thinking that the immaterial, omnipotent creator of the universe consists of or is bound by physical laws is really really messed illogical thinking. 

Every example we have of natural intelligence is a self-organising system that functions because of the laws of thermodynamics. Every example we have of natural intelligence is embodied in a physical environment which can be sensed and acted within. We have good reason to believe that every form of natural intelligence can ultimately be explained in terms of thermodynamics.

If you want to assert that natural intelligence exists in any other form (i.e. not AI) then give an example, evidence and at the very least a hypothesis on how it might function.

So if your god is intelligent (i.e. a being) then all the evidence is that it must also be subject to the laws of thermodynamics and therefore not eternal.

Give me one single example of intelligence that is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Supernatural intelligence. 

By definition, it is not subject to natural laws. 

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

God, by definition, is supernatural.