(March 9, 2018 at 9:39 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:08 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Supernatural basically means unexplained scientifically... I love how you guys always try to argue semantics.

So thunder used to be supernatural but is now natural? And also quantum mechanics is supernatural, also dark matter, dark energy, dark flow are still currently supernatural.

This definition implies that anything that you credit as being the workings of your god actually has a natural explanation that we just do not yet understand.

Consequently, we should be able to apply the scientific method and perform experiments on gods, angels, prayer etc.

Further, this also means that we can discard beliefs because they violate the laws of nature that we now understand, such as the second law of thermodynamics meaning that a god cannot be eternal.

So... some guy looked at a photo, and declared the contents "beyond scientific understanding"? He didn't even have access to the actual thing, just a picture. How utterly absurd.

Even if that was true, that doesn't mean we won't ever understand it. And even if we never understand it... so what? That still doesn't mean, "my magical made-up story is true".

I mean, I don't give a shit if there is a god or not. But if this is the kind of "evidence" he is presenting to us, then clearly he wants us to conclude that he doesn't exist.

(March 9, 2018 at 9:39 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:08 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Supernatural basically means unexplained scientifically... I love how you guys always try to argue semantics.

So thunder used to be supernatural but is now natural? And also quantum mechanics is supernatural, also dark matter, dark energy, dark flow are still currently supernatural.

This definition implies that anything that you credit as being the workings of your god actually has a natural explanation that we just do not yet understand.

Consequently, we should be able to apply the scientific method and perform experiments on gods, angels, prayer etc.

Further, this also means that we can discard beliefs because they violate the laws of nature that we now understand, such as the second law of thermodynamics meaning that a god cannot be eternal.

Explain how a being that created nature would be subject to it's laws? Besides, do you not realize that time doesn't exist for a particle of light? How do you reconcile that with your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics?

(March 9, 2018 at 9:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Explain how a being that created nature would be subject to it's laws?

Sure. But to do so I need you to explain how your hypothetical being created nature.

(March 9, 2018 at 9:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Besides, do you not realize that time doesn't exist for a particle of light? How do you reconcile that with your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics?

Are you saying that your god is sub-atomic in size? How did it then create a universe?

(March 9, 2018 at 9:46 am)robvalue Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:39 am)Mathilda Wrote: So thunder used to be supernatural but is now natural? And also quantum mechanics is supernatural, also dark matter, dark energy, dark flow are still currently supernatural.

This definition implies that anything that you credit as being the workings of your god actually has a natural explanation that we just do not yet understand.

Consequently, we should be able to apply the scientific method and perform experiments on gods, angels, prayer etc.

Further, this also means that we can discard beliefs because they violate the laws of nature that we now understand, such as the second law of thermodynamics meaning that a god cannot be eternal.

So... some guy looked at a photo, and declared the contents "beyond scientific understanding"?

He didn’t even say that much though.  The person who “vetted” the picture simply said the photo hadn’t been tampered with after the fact, and that it is, in fact, a photo of light.  He never mentioned anything about the source of light not being natural, whatever that even means. Then Huggy makes the mind boggling leap from light to Jesus, and his evidence?  ‘Well, the priest said it was god,
and he was a good guy so...’ lol.

I wonder, if we were all instantly convinced, and converted to Christianity based on this picture, might Huggy think to himself that we’re a tad gullible?

(March 9, 2018 at 10:04 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:46 am)robvalue Wrote: So... some guy looked at a photo, and declared the contents "beyond scientific understanding"?

He didn’t even say that much though.  The person who “vetted” the picture simply said the photo hadn’t been tampered with after the fact, and that it is, in fact, a photo of light.  He never mentioned anything about the source of light not being natural, whatever that even means.  Then Huggy makes the mind boggling leap from light to Jesus, and his evidence?  ‘Well, the priest said it was god,
and he was a good guy so...’ lol.

I wonder, if we were all instantly convinced, and converted to Christianity based on this picture, might Huggy think to himself that we’re a tad gullible?

Apparently you didn't read anything in the link you posted.

(March 8, 2018 at 9:08 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Here we go.  I present to you all, Huggy’s irrefutable proof of the Holy Spirit, so we can laugh and move on:

Spoiler alert:

---

It’s a penis.

---

https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/tag/george-j-lacy/

Quote:George J. Lacy, Investigator of Questioned Documents, and often hired by the FBI in that capacity, subjected the negative to every scientific test available. At a news conference, he stated, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.”

(March 9, 2018 at 9:08 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 8:53 am)Grandizer Wrote: If there's no explanation, then there's no explanation. Full stop. It's a logical contradiction to say there's no explanation, while simultaneously declaring the supernatural as an explanation.

Supernatural basically means unexplained scientifically... I love how you guys always try to argue semantics.

But "currently unexplained scientifically" does not mean/imply "supernatural". This isn't mere semantics, by the way. This is logic.

Quote:

(March 9, 2018 at 8:53 am)Grandizer Wrote: But we do have an explanation anyway (Min did a great job of providing it). You just don't want the explanation to be true for understandable psychological reasons.

Yes Min did an excellent job of providing a photo taken inside the Sam Houston coliseum 20 years after the fact and another photo taken at the Ed Sullivan show, which is totally unrelated.

The point is that the explanation he linked to gives us a good idea of what that "light" could've been. And I haven't seen you actually refute that (you laughed it off in your usual manner, but didn't provide any effective refutation). But if you can't be bothered to do that, we can go back to the default case of there being no explanation for the phenomenon as of yet. It makes no difference, because you still need to demonstrate that the supernatural was behind such a phenomenon.

Quote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:02 am)Grandizer Wrote: Rather, the issue is in your gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills.

Well then I'm glad the Denmark thread exists to prove that false...

The Denmark thread doesn't prove the case that you have demonstrated proper critical thinking skills in this thread (nor in many other threads). If anything, that you think referring to that thread does such a thing actually demonstrates my point, not negates it.

(March 9, 2018 at 10:03 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Explain how a being that created nature would be subject to it's laws?

Sure. But to do so I need you to explain how your hypothetical being created nature.

“Well, right here in the Bible it says...”  😏

(March 9, 2018 at 10:03 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 9:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Explain how a being that created nature would be subject to it's laws?

Sure. But to do so I need you to explain how your hypothetical being created nature.

(March 9, 2018 at 9:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Besides, do you not realize that time doesn't exist for a particle of light? How do you reconcile that with your interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics?

Are you saying that your god is sub-atomic in size? How did it then create a universe?

Common atheist tactic, when in doubt DEFLECT!

You clearly stated that according to "the second law of thermodynamics meaning that a god cannot be eternal.", My question to you is, if that is true then how can a photon be eternal?

(March 9, 2018 at 10:17 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 10:04 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: He didn’t even say that much though.  The person who “vetted” the picture simply said the photo hadn’t been tampered with after the fact, and that it is, in fact, a photo of light.  He never mentioned anything about the source of light not being natural, whatever that even means.  Then Huggy makes the mind boggling leap from light to Jesus, and his evidence?  ‘Well, the priest said it was god,
and he was a good guy so...’ lol.

I wonder, if we were all instantly convinced, and converted to Christianity based on this picture, might Huggy think to himself that we’re a tad gullible?

Quote:George J. Lacy, Investigator of Questioned Documents, and often hired by the FBI in that capacity, subjected the negative to every scientific test available. At a news conference, he stated, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.”

Did you ever think to verify (for yourself) that he did indeed say that, and that it wasn't someone else making up stuff about what he said?

(March 9, 2018 at 10:24 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 10:03 am)Mathilda Wrote: Sure. But to do so I need you to explain how your hypothetical being created nature.



Are you saying that your god is sub-atomic in size? How did it then create a universe?

Common atheist tactic, when in doubt DEFLECT!

You clearly stated that according to "the second law of thermodynamics meaning that a god cannot be eternal.", My question to you is, if that is true then how can a photon be eternal?

Typical theistic use of false equivalence.

Gods and photons are not equivalent.

Photons do not display intelligence. Gods are always described as being intelligent beings. Photons do not change. Intelligence require change over time.

And as I posted earlier on in this thread

(March 8, 2018 at 10:49 am)Mathilda Wrote: 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.