Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[LadyForCamus]

Okay, so 'gullible' it REALLY is then, Huggy.  People saw it with their own eyes after they were explicitly directed to do so.  The pastor literally TELLS the audience that there is a light hovering over someone's head, and he doesn't even stop there.  He baldly suggests to them,  "just like in the picture," specifically so that none of his rapt believers miss the biblical parallel he's trying to draw. This is common stage hypnotism.  Highly suggestable folks who are eager to believe are easy to manipulate.

Shame on you for being taken by such foolishness.  Please, quit while your behind.

So we've gone from stage magic to stage hypnotism? NONE OF WHICH EXPLAIN THE PICTURE!

You're right.  Light explains the picture of...light.  

You can't psychologically fool a mechanical device

No, but you can psychologically fool gullible people.  Especially if you have strong motivation to do so.

If you want to claim that the picture is just a "glitch" as Astreja  put it, that does not explain why there is eye witness accounting of it.

It was light, says your scientist.  Light is pretty natural last I checked.   And, your witnesses didn't spontaneously see light.  It was baldly suggested to them.  No, that's not suspicious at all, given the circumstances.     You realize there exists a body of scientific evidence which demonstrates individuals, especially highly suggestable individuals can see/here/feel things that aren't there, right?  Dare I ask what you think of Fatima?

you want to claim that people were "hypnotized" into seeing something that wasn't there, that does not explain why there is a thoroughly vetted picture.

Your own reference explained the picture.   It was fucking light.

Try as you guys might, you can't attempt to debunk one without acknowledging the other.

There is nothing here that requires debunking, Huggy.  We've already put forward several natural, more probable explanations for this ridiculous claim than "God-magic."  That's all we need to reasonably dismiss it.  It's not my problem you have no actual evidence of the supernatural.

And to answer your earlier question:

Since your own scientific source determined only that the cause of image was light, how did you reach the conclusion that the source of the light was the Holy Spirit?

Jesus returned back to the form he was at the beginning of creation, which was light. When Paul saw Jesus, he saw a light...

Well, sure.  When all your reasoning begins with the unevidenced assertion, "the Bible is true," I'm sure you can find lots of stuff after the fact that appears to fit its narrative.  Retroactively shoehorning natural phenomena into cryptic, ill-defined prose written thousands of years ago is not hard.  "The Bible is god's word because it says so in the Bible" is circular reasoning, Hugz. Next.

To be clear the examiner of the photo never said the light was supernatural in the official report (no scientist would), it was his personal opinion that the light was supernatural, meaning there was no scientific explanation for why it appeared on film.

Good for him.  I'd like to ask him the same questions I've asked you.  

William Branham stated that the light was the Holy Spirit, He said he's  seen that light all his life, even before he ever was a christian.

So?  You think that is evidence of something?  I've been abducted by aliens all my life.  Believe me?

I'll be back to address the rest of this shit show later when I've got a few minutes.