Yesterday's Thor is today's Almighty God and tomorrow's Universal Quantum God.
I hate to nitpick HS, but Thor was never considered an infinite being. So to compare a god like Thor to the monotheistic concept of "God" is like comparing apples and oranges. However you can name the idea of "God", we are essentially speaking of the same thing.
Have you actually studied the history of religion?
I have. Of course there is always more to learn. The book you mention sounds interesting. But first I want to pick up and read this one.
...this tome, the history of religious though is traced and its common theme outlined. As Funky Derek noted, all modern religion stems from primitive and common sources.
The universality of belief in even the most primitive that you seem to allude to constitutes further evidence for the existance of God, and not as you seem to be saying, the opposite. It demonstrates that belief in God is axiomatic and can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence for the existence of God.
you must present some sort of evidence as to why you do not view a "lower case god" as divine and why you view an "upper case God" as divine.
Can you do this?
I do not need to. I am not arguing over the divinity of Thor, or Zeus, or the angels or whatever.
I am speaking of the Ultimate Being, the Uncaused Cause, from which (or whom), if such a property as divinity exists (and can be posessed by a putative deity such as Thor), it must logically derive.
Cheers,
Burn