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

[Huggy Bear]

Do it.

The photo has to be scientifically vetted by an expert in the field of photography.

I can't wait.

Your photo wasn't scientifically vetted to be a photo of God, it was vetted as not having been retouched (according to 1950 standards). That's not at all the same thing. You're equivocating about what people mean by scientific evidence. Seeing that there was only one photo on the entire roll of film, and there are no contextual clues in the photograph to attest to it being taken when and where it is reported as having being taken, then fraud is a definite possibility. Fraud not involving retouching the photo hasn't been ruled out. Only retouching the photo has evidence against it. But retouching the photo isn't the only way that image could have been created so it hasn't even been scientifically vetted as a mysterious, unexplained floating light.

First of all "scientific examination" was literally stated in the official report.

Also fraud doesn't explain the eye witness testimony or the audio recordings, I'll compile and post it sometime soon.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I still use film in my medium format vintage Hasselblad. Sometimes the transparencies come back with little markings on them. Sometimes it's happened in the lab. Sometimes it's light leaking into the camera if I have been careless. It had never occurred to me to claim it as being evidence of the supernatural.

Yeah, because a world renowned expert never would of thought of that...

Right, so let's think about the process here.

The emulsion is photo-sensitive. The more light there is the whiter it gets.

How can a 'world renowned expert' from the 1950's (Hah!) determine where the light came from to have caused a non-descript blob?

All the document says is that the negative hadn't been obviously tampered with. Not that it hadn't. But that doesn't really say much because you wouldn't actually need to to recreate that photo deliberately. No explanation was given as to the cause of the blob. It could just as easily have been stray light during development. After all, black and white film is very easy to develop in your own bathroom and is easy to manipulate without touching the negative. And there would be an obvious financial benefit in doctoring such an image.

You're obviously not a film photographer yourself are you Huggy.

[robvalue]

I can't take this any more. My brain is going to implode. We're expanding the argument from ignorance to the picture from ignorance and the audio file from ignorance.

I'm going to spend some time with real Odin who is real, and not one of these imaginary friends people desperately cling to.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Further questions for Huggy.

Did people report seeing a halo before the film was processed? Did any other pictures capture the halo? Or did they not have it? I seem to recall you saying that the others didn't come out. The simplest explanation being that all the other attempts to deliberately shine light selectively on the negative ruined them, or the other negatives were deliberately thrown away.

Because think about it, you are saying that the film picked up a halo. This would require that sufficient photons were sent from the halo to the camera. So why didn't other people see it at the time and report it before the photo was developed and why weren't there many more pictures of it? Or are you claiming that the halo only sent photons from the halo to the camera?

[Minimalist]

What's so special about halos?  The Greeks and Romans used them for centuries before the christards borrowed the idea for their godboy.

[Succubus]

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/

It looks to me more like a photon torpedo from the Star Trek thread.

---

...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...

Explain how an immaterial entity can interact with a material universe.


Show your work.

[Huggy Bear]

Right, so let's think about the process here.

The emulsion is photo-sensitive. The more light there is the whiter it gets.

How can a 'world renowned expert' from the 1950's (Hah!) determine where the light came from to have caused a non-descript blob?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_S..._Examiners

The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners is the world's oldest  society dedicated to the forensic science of questioned document examination with 144 members worldwide. The current president is Jason Lee Miller.

http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html

George Lacy was the fifth president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners and the last of the 15 men who established the organization to be elected to that office.

During Mr. Lacy's early work in law enforcement he arrested Charles Ponzi, the namesake of the Ponzi Scheme.  He began his career in forensic science as a general criminalist and ballistics expert.  As a ballistics expert, he worked on the Bonnie and Clyde case.  He later specialized in questioned document examination.  He was responsible for establishing the Houston Police Crime Laboratory.  Mr. Lacy maintained a private practice in Houston, Texas for many years.

What has the 50's got to do with anything? probes were being sent to the moon in the 50's not to mention people in the 60's (and we haven't been back since), yet all of the sudden people from the 50's are too stupid to know how the science behind a camera works?

This just goes to show the lengths you guys will go to dismiss any evidence (none of you have access to the original negatives, yet somehow you know better than the expert) that doesn't adhere to your worldview, no matter how much scientific verification...

[Minimalist]

Looks to me as if someone standing behind him jerked off on his head.  Now that would be appropriate.

[Succubus]

Yeah, because a world renowned expert never would of thought of that...

Expert in photography perhaps, not in supernatural matters. That was his opinion in the last section.

That thing is dated 1950 if it were 40 years later with the introduction of digital photography it it would identified as an Orb.

[Angrboda]

Jor, that’s one of the work attempts at exegesis I’ve every seen. And the verses you quoted even make the caseagainst you.

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 20:11, NASB

So not a contemporaneous text at all. FAIL! You’re just quoting the text that’s already it question. And what’s worse the text doesn’t even say that it’s to be taken as a literal fact.

Man are you desperate.  Exodus isn't contemporaneous to Genesis?  What have you been smoking?  The text clearly testifies that Moses thought of the days in Genesis as literal days, otherwise his parallel with the Sabbath doesn't make sense.

The bible itself testifies to a literal interpretation of Genesis,…

You must mean the part where is says “dark sayings of old?” Yeah that sounds really super emphatic that the biblical texts are entirely and only factual in nature.

Then He said, “Hear now My words: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?” - Numbers 12:6–8, ESV [emphasis mine]

Wow! Way to interpret the text in the exact opposite way that it says. It is absolutely clear that sometime the Lord does speak with “dark sayings of old”, i.e. symbols, metaphors, and allegory. And that same phrase also occurs in Psalm 78:1-3

But not with Moses, the author of Genesis.  Remember the topic?  It's is Genesis a literal account, not are some accounts in the bible allegorical or "dark sayings."

You're obviously trying to glean a defense of the original point, no matter how ridiculous that defense is.  And you're failing.

” Give ear, O my people, to my teaching;
incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
I will open my mouth in a parable;
I will utter dark sayings from of old,
things that we have heard and known,
that our fathers have told us..”

“Parables”…”Dark Sayings”…Gee whiz, that sure doesn’t sound like the bible testifying to take itself literally. Only someone with no integrity and an evil intent to make a mockery of holy things would misrepresent the biblical text like that. (That's you by the way since you have a hard time interpreting things that aren't spelled out for her)

This is Asah testifying about what their fathers had told them.  Since God himself said he doesn't do that with Moses, your verses are entirely beside the point.

…and the early church fathers testify to a literal belief in the flood (HERE).  That you want to make a strategic retreat from literalism because your bible doesn't square with the facts means absutely squat.

The facts are not as simple as you say and you dishonestly exclude contrary examples that do not justify your bigotry.

First, you failed to included Origen in your list of Church Fathers: http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/04/orige...g-genesis/

It's not entirely clear that Origen denied a literal level of meaning to the text.  Regardless, the consensus of the church fathers was that the flood actually happened.  Feel free to quote Origen talking about the flood if you must, it's still a minority opinion.  

Then of course there is Thomas Aquinas who also couldn't be more clear:

”…It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things… Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." … that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it.”
And…

”… The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled… those things that are taught metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6).

And who is the dog in this scenario?

Looking in Wikipedia, I don't see Aquinas listed as a church father.  Later opinion is irrelevant as I noted in my original post, what matters is what was originally thought to be the case.  Some misty eyed philosopher writing in the 13th century doesn't count as near to the original text, nor again does this specifically say that this applies to Moses' testimony in Genesis.  I'll take God's word over that of Aquinas any day and twice on Sunday.

Did some Church Fathers assert the factuality of Genesis and the Flood? Yes, but that sentiment was not universally agreed upon. Nor was it deemed important. It was always secondary to the spiritual meaning of the text conveyed by allegory and metaphor.

Yeah, that's right Neo, move them goal posts.  It's like Sandburg said, "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

Moreover, the use of allegory and metaphor is how the bible protects atheists like you from themselves, people deceiving themselves and spewing hate by twisting the text around to justify their contempt for people of piety. Swedenborg makes this clear, echoing Matthew 7:

” The sense of the letter of the Word [literal meaning] serves as a guard for the genuine truths which lie within; and the guard consists in this, that the literal sense can be turned hither and thither, that is, can be explained according to everyone's apprehension, without its internal being hurt or violated; for no harm ensues from the literal sense being understood differently by different people; but it does harm when the Divine truths which are within are perverted...

Swedenborg, seriously?  You've got to be fucking joking.   My previous comments about Aquinas count double here.

You're pathetic, Neo.  Seriously.