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

[GrandizerII]

Light is not supernatural. It has many perfectly natural causes.

The issue is not the light, it's the behavior of the light.

Rather, the issue is in your gullibility and lack of critical thinking skills.

[Huggy Bear]

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 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 issue is not the light, it's the behavior of the light.

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...

---

Supernatural is a real word with a real definition.

So is bootylicious.

A word I'm sure you know all about...

[I_am_not_mafia]

Point is even if the light were supernatural (whatever supernatural means) and could definitely not be explained by natural means (as opposed to not having enough information to decide on a normal explanation), you still couldn't draw any conclusions from it about your god because there's no explanation!

In this case the light could just as easily be from Odin as your god.

Which brings us to the most common failing of critical thinking by wooists and religionists. A (current) lack of explanation does not mean that you are therefore correct in believing something else not supported by any evidence. It should not be used as an excuse to make shit up.

Scientists for example, go to great efforts to only state what can be supported by evidence.

[LadyForCamus]

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 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.

---

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...

---

So is bootylicious.

A word I'm sure you know all about...

WOW.

[Silver]

So is bootylicious.

A word I'm sure you know all about...

[possibletarian]

Not to be beaten, the mighty Odin goes one further (with Gertrude Gobshytes permission of course)

[robvalue]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that's gone on throughout our history. Something happens, and people don't understand what it is or how it works. They are very uncomfortable with not knowing, so they'd rather make up an answer than accept it as unexplained. So we get magical stories with imaginary characters.

Progress is made when people stop with all this pointless speculation and focus on what we can actually learn. Made-up answers are not only silly, they impede progress, because people feel they already have the solution. In fact, people will cling to it even when better, scientific explanations are found.

It's really basic logic. No explanation does not equal "my preferred explanation". I don't know how much clearer I can possibly make it. All it shows is that such a person defaults their thinking to their personal pet magical story, whenever another explanation isn't available. A person who cares about the truth just defaults to no explanation.

[possibletarian]

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

But what you are doing is talking light striking a negative a very well know process, and then claiming it's beyond scientific understanding.

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.

Well sports tends to get people in a more rational frame of mind than religion (and that's saying something) and as for 20 years old, how old is your picture ?
If one were to look carefully you could likely find lots of picture in people home collections that have light leakage or weird artefacts in photos.
People believe what they want to believe when in religious fervour I saw lots of it in my years as a christian.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

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.

[LadyForCamus]

Light is not supernatural. It has many perfectly natural causes.

The issue is not the light, it's the behavior of the light.

And how, exactly, did this light behave?  And what about it’s behavior is indicative of the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit?  Please do not use, “the priest said it’s the Holy Spirit”; that’s merely his assertion.