Can believers answer this?

[t_raven]

My response was generally applying across the board to the respondents. But your response was helpful, I think I see the issue now.

Most atheist seem to be upset that they have not received personal revelation from God himself, and their standard for evidence is set there. I've garnered the data suggesting that "research" consists of memes and Sam Harris videos, pop atheist books etc.

The problem is, this means you can't harass us for that. Only God can reveal himself, you can't demand we "prove" this if this is the only thing that would convince you.

Ultimately, I'm interested in where the case we've presented falters, and what we can do to improve it. Still helpful though.

"Only God can reveal himself"....he hasn't...but we should believe in him anyway. Neither has the flying spaghetti monster or the tea pot that orbits the moon, but you refuse to believe in either of those.

You need to get over the idea that atheists are just mad that God hasn't done this or that for them. We can't be mad at something we don't believe in.

[guyver79]

This is a riff on the 'one god further' argument, which has already been addressed.

There are good reasons to reject Nordic Gods etc, primarily incoherence, lack of philosophical interest etc. The reason why none of us are ever called to present those is because afaik there are no more people who believe in these things, noone presenting a robust case, and thusly we acquire no burden to defend our disbelief because there is no one there to debate.

My thread was seeking constructive criticism of our case. This is pure JAQoff kneejerk trolling.

Is this some weird argument ad populum?

A lack of people not believing it doesn't make it untrue.

A lack of serious philosophical interest?

Aren't most philosophers atheist, wouldn't that mean that theological philosophy is quite the niche subject and has a lack of interest?

So by your standard the atheist doesn't have to defend his views and your beliefs are on shaky ground?

[Athanasius90]

No it is not. You have failed to grasp my point.

[guyver79]

No it is not. You have failed to grasp my point.

But you did say there's a lack of interest from philosophers?

(Not to mention historians and scientists too)

[Athanasius90]

But you did say there's a lack of interest from philosophers?

(Not to mention historians and scientists too)

I said it's a topic of zero philosophical interest.

[guyver79]

I said it's a topic of zero philosophical interest.

And there's zero interest in transcendent beings in cosmology.

[Athanasius90]

And there's zero interest in transcendent beings in cosmology.

Go back and read my background notes for an answer to this. Dentists don't seriously talk about fiber optics? Obstetricians have zero interest in icythology. The point?

What I am saying, is that we don't have anyone seriously debating Nordic Gods in any intellectual context. Or at least, anyone in the academic or intellectual circuit. Maybe there is someone out there somewhere, but the evidence is likely they are not there. The converse is true with theism. There is still a very active and lively debate circuit and some of our best academics meet up to debate the topic. Theists still form a huge part of the worlds population, there are plenty of adults who return to belief after seriously analysing the case etc. There is one key difference.

If I ever encounter someone who has a serious case for Norse Gods, I will listen to his case and debate it. I doubt I'll ever encounter him.

[guyver79]

Go back and read my background notes for an answer to this. Dentists don't seriously talk about fiber optics? Obstetricians have zero interest in icythology. The point?

What I am saying, is that we don't have anyone seriously debating Nordic Gods in any intellectual context. Or at least, anyone in the academic or intellectual circuit. Maybe there is someone out there somewhere, but the evidence is likely they are not there. The converse is true with theism. There is still a very active and lively debate circuit and some of our best academics meet up to debate the topic. Theists still form a huge part of the worlds population, there are plenty of adults who return to belief after seriously analysing the case etc. There is one key difference.

If I ever encounter someone who has a serious case for Norse Gods, I will listen to his case and debate it. I doubt I'll ever encounter him.

It was your point, that philosophers don't take the norse gods seriously and since most philosophers are atheists I'd assume they don't take Jewish mythology Tha seriously either.

[Athanasius90]

It was your point, that philosophers don't take the norse gods seriously and since most philosophers are atheists I'd assume they don't take Jewish mythology Tha seriously either.

I'm saying the very topic itself is not one of philosophical interest, and never could be, due to the categorical difference. It goes back to the dumb "one god further" argument so eloquently dismantled by Feser.

I'm not so sure about the majority of philosophers being atheists. I think that survey you're referring to may be misleading in that it only queried Anglophone academia which would have philosophers reared in the analytic tradition which was pretty much built on hostility to certain philosophical questions like theism.

There are entire regions of the world which we don't have solid data about--such as the European universities with plenty of Catholic philosophers, Asian universities, countries with a surge of Christianity etc.

[TrettinR]

Apparently, the only people who believe in the Norse mythology are atheists.

Arguing against it is like trying to convince people rocks aren't alive. lol

[guyver79]

I'm saying the very topic itself is not one of philosophical interest, and never could be, due to the categorical difference. It goes back to the dumb "one god further" argument so eloquently dismantled by Feser.

I'm not so sure about the majority of philosophers being atheists. I think that survey you're referring to may be misleading in that it only queried Anglophone academia which would have philosophers reared in the analytic tradition which was pretty much built on hostility to certain philosophical questions like theism.

There are entire regions of the world which we don't have solid data about--such as the European universities with plenty of Catholic philosophers, Asian universities, countries with a surge of Christianity etc.

But it was you that brought up that no philosophers defend the Norse Gods I merely pointed out that most that by your standard, since most philosophers lean towards atheism that it looks as though they don't take Jewish mythology seriously either?

It's your argument Ath, not my fault that you shot yourself in the foot.

Like you say you don't have data for other countries so I'm not too sure why you even brought it up.

[illriginalized]

Ragnar�k already occurred.
Hence the religion is dead.

I can confirm.

I was T�r.

[Athanasius90]

But it was you that brought up that no philosophers defend the Norse Gods I merely pointed out that most that by your standard, since most philosophers lean towards atheism that it looks as though they don't take Jewish mythology seriously either?

It's your argument Ath, not my fault that you shot yourself in the foot.

Like you say you don't have data for other countries so I'm not too sure why you even brought it up.

Reread what I said. You have a persistently annoying habit of misreading people.

Your argument would be a textbook appeal to popularity. My point is not that.

[guyver79]

Reread what I said. You have a persistently annoying habit of misreading people.

Your argument would be a textbook appeal to popularity. My point is not that.

Odin along with his brothers created the world out of the body of ymir.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. The universe has a transcendent cause.

This makes Odin's existence more likely, we have good evidence that premise two is correct in it's description the the universe is finite in the past premise one is supported by intuitive everyday experience and that since "Something" cannot be created from "nothing" I think you'd find that Odin creating the universe "ex-meteria" is more likely than a claim of a god that creates "ex-nihilo".

[Athanasius90]

Odin along with his brothers created the world out of the body of ymir.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. The universe has a transcendent cause.

This makes Odin's existence more likely, we have good evidence that premise two is correct in it's description the the universe is finite in the past premise one is supported by intuitive everyday experience and that since "Something" cannot be created from "nothing" I think you'd find that Odin creating the universe "ex-meteria" is more likely than a claim of a god that creates "ex-nihilo".

No. It's not even consistent with the argument.

Fesers post on this dismantles such a high school argument. I know you think its devastatingly clever, but it really isn't.

[guyver79]

No. It's not even consistent with the argument.

Fesers post on this dismantles such a high school argument. I know you think its devastatingly clever, but it really isn't.

How is it not consistent, you have to show how it isn't AND in your own words not a copy pasta from Feser.

How many of the prominent odinist defenders have you read?

Admittedly if you can give examples of intuitive everyday creation ex-nihilo you'd be able to post your creator god as a possibility, otherwise creation ex-meteria is much more likely.

[Ehsaun]

The Kalam argument, if true, could support polytheism or monotheism.

[Ehsaun]

I said it's a topic of zero philosophical interest.

Essays on Polytheistic Philosophy of Religion by Edward Butler


http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Polythe.../dp/1105709175

[Harbinger]

ITT, Feser's opinions are facts.

[BadMonkeyFunker]

Bible is classic mythology. Not even an original one.

The Gilgamesh Epic dating all the way back 3500 B.C. = angry god flooded the world story.

[guyver79]

ITT, Feser's opinions are facts.

Inb4 angels.

[FineThanks]

ITT: Christians are required to prove the Norse gods exist or else accept that their own god doesn't exist.

Sounds legit.

[Harbinger]

ITT: Christians are required to prove the Norse gods exist or else accept that their own god doesn't exist.

Sounds legit.

Try again Spawkey

[Sargamatha]

Ragnar Lothbrok came to me in my sleep, and said there is no valhalla.

[FineThanks]

Try again Spawkey

Orly. What else is going on here, Slick? You're demanding Christians prove Odin's existence. How do you not see how ludicrous that is. Let the forum Asatruars prove he exists.

[t_raven]

Orly. What else is going on here, Slick? You're demanding Christians prove Odin's existence. How do you not see how ludicrous that is. Let the forum Asatruars prove he exists.

Asking a Christian to to prove a certain God doesn't exist is the same argument as a Christian asking atheists to prove the Christian god doesn't exist.

It's the exact same argument, and it's ridiculous, but that was the point of OP making the thread.

[SageKing]

I'm saying the very topic itself is not one of philosophical interest, and never could be, due to the categorical difference. It goes back to the dumb "one god further" argument so eloquently dismantled by Feser.

I'm not so sure about the majority of philosophers being atheists. I think that survey you're referring to may be misleading in that it only queried Anglophone academia which would have philosophers reared in the analytic tradition which was pretty much built on hostility to certain philosophical questions like theism.

There are entire regions of the world which we don't have solid data about--such as the European universities with plenty of Catholic philosophers, Asian universities, countries with a surge of Christianity etc.

Yes, it is an area of philosophical interest, you just don't know what you are talking about.

It's not as much in the West because old faith was systematically buried by the new faith, which is why people call it 'Mythology' in the first place. People were made to abandon their old gods for the new god.

The new god can also be said to be a copy paste of the old gods, from Gilgamesh, to Horus, etc...

The argument that the older gods existed can be said to be actually stronger than the argument that the God with a capital G exists, and this is furthered by you having faith in a god that had his stories 'copied' from those old gods. Surely the original stories must be the more authentic? How could the copy be the true event?

And there is philosophical discussion of the old gods to this day in places where they had 'polytheism' and a stronger understanding of history, such as places that include Buddhism, Japan, etc...

But don't worry, I don't expect a strong response from you, so far in this thread you have been stumbling around, evading points, etc... No offense, I just understand that you don't know what you are talking about. I recommend getting a further education in theism, and studying abroad, you obviously have an interest in it, time to expand it and put it to use.

And at the end of the day, believe whatever you want, just don't try and push it on other people because you wouldn't want that done to you, especially by someone who isn't quite learned in what he is talking about.

Edit: And no disrespect intended to anyone's religion or faith, I fully accept anyone believing in whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm themselves or others.

[CalmWind]

[img]https://rightorron.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/noah-watcher-v2-luca-nemolato.jimg]

Let me guess.

You think a hollywood movie, Noah, made by an atheist...... clearly represents what is written in the Bible?

You think there are talking rock people in the Bible, amirite? Because you saw Noah, so it must b true.

[Austanian]

Let me guess.

You think a hollywood movie, Noah, made by an atheist...... clearly represents what is written in the Bible?

You think there are talking rock people in the Bible, amirite? Because you saw Noah, so it must b true.

Never saw the movie. Were the rock people Nephilim?

[FineThanks]

Asking a Christian to to prove a certain God doesn't exist is the same argument as a Christian asking atheists to prove the Christian god doesn't exist.

It's the exact same argument, and it's ridiculous, but that was the point of OP making the thread.

It's not at all the same argument. They're two different narratives. What you guys are doing is the equivalent of asking American Republicans to prove the validity of British Labor Party policies. They have no reason to do so.

A Christian has no reason to deny Odin's existence. You guys seem to be operating on the assumption that if any Christian allowed for the reality that Odin existed, then that Christian must necessarily start worshiping Odin, since the only reason they don't worship him is because they don't believe he exists. But it doesn't work that way. Christianity grew up in a world full of pagan gods whose existence the Christians accepted, while refusing to worship them.